Why haven't apes given birth

[Carico]

I hate to clue evolutionists in on what even children know; Apes don't breed human beings any more than skunks, rabbits, or hippos breed human beings. :lol: But since evolutionists don't know the difference between animals and humans then I can see why they're confused on this issue. So I suggest that evolutionists go back and learn the birds and the bees to understand what each species breeds, before they think they can understand anything beyond that point. :wink:

[technomage]

I hate to clue evolutionists in on what even children know; Apes don't breed human beings any more than skunks, rabbits, or hippos breed human beings. :lol: But since evolutionists don't know the difference between animals and humans then I can see why they're confused on this issue. So I suggest that evolutionists go back and learn the birds and the bees to understand what each species breeds, before they think they can understand anything beyond that point. :wink:
I hate to clue you in, Carico, but no scientist says that apes bred human beings.

[wattsr1]

I hate to clue evolutionists in on what even children know; Apes don't breed human beings any more than skunks, rabbits, or hippos breed human beings. :lol: But since evolutionists don't know the difference between animals and humans then I can see why they're confused on this issue. So I suggest that evolutionists go back and learn the birds and the bees to understand what each species breeds, before they think they can understand anything beyond that point. :wink:

I hate to clue Carico up, but we evolutionist know that apes do not breed human beings. Obviously then, there is something wrong with your reasoning if we know what you know and we still accept evolution.

Therefore Carico is being silly.

(Your name is not Kendemyer is it?)

[Stabbytheclown]

I hate to clue evolutionists in on what even children know; Apes don't breed human beings any more than skunks, rabbits, or hippos breed human beings. :lol: But since evolutionists don't know the difference between animals and humans then I can see why they're confused on this issue. So I suggest that evolutionists go back and learn the birds and the bees to understand what each species breeds, before they think they can understand anything beyond that point. :wink:

Your biggest worry should not be whether you are descended from apes, but whether you'll be overtaken by them. Get off my internet.

[Minnesota]

Boy, the OP is sooo sad one almost wants to put their arm around Carico's shoulders and comfort him/her.

[technomage]

Boy, the OP is sooo sad one almost wants to put their arm around Carico's shoulders and comfort him/her.
Being familiar with her from another forum--I'll just say you ain't seen the limits of sad.

[supersport]

wattsr1:

(Your name is not Kendemyer is it?)

This Kendemyer guy must have really haunted you evolutionists. Do you still have nightmares about him or what?

[Tiggy]

Here is a great web site with a detailed history on the evolution of homo sapiens

Becoming Human (http://www.becominghuman.org/)

PLEASE READ THE WHOLE **** THING supersport, and don't come back until you have. :ahem:

- Tiggy

[Minnesota]

(Your name is not Kendemyer is it?)

This Kendemyer guy must have really haunted you evolutionists. Do you still have nightmares about him or what?
He was a hard headed creationist ( nice guy, actually) who ignored evidence that went against him. You know the kind. He says 2 + 2 = 5 so you explain why it doesn't, and he comes back with, "7 - 3 = 5." In a way he was a pain, but his goofy presumptions and arguments were kind of amusing. Anyway, he was suspended from Tweb and is evidently now banned; however, he has returned a number of times under new aliases. So when any noobie with his posting characteristics appears many of us pause to see if it could be him.

[Natural Skeptic]

I hate to clue evolutionists in on what even children know; Apes don't breed human beings any more than skunks, rabbits, or hippos breed human beings.

I don't recall any animal, other than humans, practicing in animal husbandry to the point of articifical selection. Certainly some ants raise aphids and milk them, but I doubt they purposely bred better milking aphids.

Silliness aside, no evolutionist believes modern apes will give rise to a modern form of humanity. For one, we already possess this ecological niche. For another, genetic and anatomic characteristics would require many more years than Dick Clark could ever survive.

But since evolutionists don't know the difference between animals and humans then I can see why they're confused on this issue. So I suggest that evolutionists go back and learn the birds and the bees to understand what each species breeds, before they think they can understand anything beyond that point. :wink:

What seperates us from animals?

[supersport]

He was a hard headed creationist ( nice guy, actually) who ignored evidence that went against him. You know the kind. He says 2 + 2 = 5 so you explain why it doesn't, and he comes back with, "7 - 3 = 5." In a way he was a pain, but his goofy presumptions and arguments were kind of amusing. Anyway, he was suspended from Tweb and is evidently now banned; however, he has returned a number of times under new aliases. So when any noobie with his posting characteristics appears many of us pause to see if it could be him.

I'm trying to figure out how this guy could say anything worse than what Tiggy does on a daily basis. Anyone know where he debates nowdays? I'd like to see him in action.

[supersport]

Here is a great web site with a detailed history on the evolution of homo sapiens

Becoming Human (http://www.becominghuman.org/)

PLEASE READ THE WHOLE **** THING supersport, and don't come back until you have. :ahem:

- Tiggy


sorry i don't debate websites. If you can't explain it, or at least give it an honest try...don't bother.

[Tiggy]

sorry i don't debate websites. If you can't explain it, or at least give it an honest try...don't bother.
You didn't ask for a debate supersport, you asked for an explanation
I would like to hear evolutionists explanation of how humans got here if apes didn't breed humans.
The site linked has your explanation in detail.

If you're too lazy to educate yourself before spouting off, don't act so surprised when you are considered a willfully ignorant knob. :ahem:

I'm trying to figure out how this guy could say anything worse than what Tiggy does on a daily basis. Anyone know where he debates nowdays? I'd like to see him in action.
If you weren't such a coward and stopped running away from your own thread discussions for once, you'd see me in action right here at TWeb. :lol:

- Tiggy

[supersport]

You didn't ask for a debate supersport, you asked for an explanation

The site linked has your explanation in detail.

If you're too lazy to educate yourself before spouting off, don't act so surprised when you are considered a willfully ignorant knob. :ahem:


If you weren't such a coward and stopped running away from your own thread discussions for once, you'd see me in action right here at TWeb. :lol:

- Tiggy

I'm running away from nothing. I just don't care to sit through a long-winded explanation. I can't debate that site...I can debate you, however. Now if you don't have the ability to tell me how humans evolved from apes then that's fine.

The day I'm afraid to debate you is the day cows fly.

[seer]

I'm running away from nothing. I just don't care to sit through a long-winded explanation. I can't debate that site...I can debate you, however. Now if you don't have the ability to tell me how humans evolved from apes then that's fine.

The day I'm afraid to debate you is the day cows fly.


I guess it's time for Tiggy to put up...

[wattsr1]

wattsr1:

(Your name is not Kendemyer is it?)

This Kendemyer guy must have really haunted you evolutionists. Do you still have nightmares about him or what?
Not at all SS.

I am curious though, given my post and other posts similar to it, why do you ask your question?

[supersport]

Not at all SS.

I am curious though, given my post and other posts similar to it, why do you ask your question?


The same question was asked of me when I first started posting here..(if I was kendemeyer undercover) It's almost like you guys are looking over your shoulders, paranoid that this guy might show up again.

[technomage]

The same question was asked of me when I first started posting here..(if I was kendemeyer undercover) It's almost like you guys are looking over your shoulders, paranoid that this guy might show up again.

He's made a habit of showing up under a variety of aliases in violation of the rules. It's not that we're "afraid" of him, it's that he's a known rulesbreaker.

[wattsr1]

The same question was asked of me when I first started posting here..(if I was kendemeyer undercover) It's almost like you guys are looking over your shoulders, paranoid that this guy might show up again.People who post such things can be:-

1) afraid that their superior may well be returning to give them another “beating” or

2) querying if a particular person is posting under yet another name in order to put up yet another vacuuous post, before being banned by the moderators yet again.

In case 1) we have something to fear. In case 2) we have something to be annoyed at.

So, out of the two options, why choose “paranoid”. I am curious.

[supersport]

People who post such things can be:-

1) afraid that their superior may well be returning to give them another “beating” or

2) querying if a particular person is posting under yet another name in order to put up yet another vacuuous post, before being banned by the moderators yet again.

In case 1) we have something to fear. In case 2) we have something to be annoyed at.

So, out of the two options, why choose “paranoid”. I am curious.

"Paranoid" seems like the correct word to use. It would be no different than if someone thought ghosts were inhabiting their house....which caused them to jump every time they heard a noise. A sort of paranoid delusion sets in.

So instead of strange noises, you guys seem to jump at new people, afraid that we might be the dreaded kendemyer.

[TheGreenMan]

"Paranoid" seems like the correct word to use. It would be no different than if someone thought ghosts were inhabiting their house....which caused them to jump every time they heard a noise. A sort of paranoid delusion sets in.

So instead of strange noises, you guys seem to jump at new people, afraid that we might be the dreaded kendemyer.
Actually it is kind of fun to see who can call the new Ken sock puppet first.

If you would like to see examples I am sure doing a search of his name will pull up a few.

[Tiggy]

I'm running away from nothing. I just don't care to sit through a long-winded explanation.
How do you propose to debate something you don't even understand? Human evolution is a complicated topic with much evidence from lots of different sciences. If you can't be bothered to hear a 'long-winded' explanation of the details, why shouldn't you be considered just a disingenuous mouthy troll? :tongue:
The day I'm afraid to debate you is the day cows fly.
You're a coward, and I'm telling you to your virtual face. Here is a *partial* list of the debate questions you have run away from:

How do you determine if a scientific theory is a 'lie from the Devil'?

Why have no Creationists in the last 100 years done your Lamarkism experiments?

Where is your evidence that Dr. Gerson actually found a cure for most forms of advanced cancer, and all forms of tuberculosis, fibromyalgia, arthritis (both osteo- and rheumatoid), and diabetes?

Why should anyone expect to use radiocarbon dating to date an object with NO organic carbon in it?

How does the single paper you cited support Lipton's grandiose claims?

Where is your evidence that evolutionists want to deport Christians from the US, and take away their voting rights, and close their churches?

Now you want to start *another* discussion that you'll undoubtedly bail out on too. Right. :ahem: Supersport, why don't you tell the board why you were banned from other E/C discussion sites? It was because of your dishonest habit of starting threads and then abandoning them when the questions you couldn't answer made you look like an idiot.

So SS, you gonna stay a disingenuous ignorant Bozo, or are you read up on Human evolution on your own, and then maybe finish one of the debates you started but ran from?

- Tiggy

[familyof6]

I hate to clue evolutionists in on what even children know; Apes don't breed human beings any more than skunks, rabbits, or hippos breed human beings. :lol: But since evolutionists don't know the difference between animals and humans then I can see why they're confused on this issue. So I suggest that evolutionists go back and learn the birds and the bees to understand what each species breeds, before they think they can understand anything beyond that point. :wink:

SERIOUSLY???!!!! :shocked: I think I just crapped my pants! And I don't know the difference between animals and people? What if my husband is an aardvark, and I don't even know it! OH MY GOODNESS, what if I've been screwin' an aardvark?!! :stunned:

[Tiggy]

SERIOUSLY???!!!! I think I just crapped my pants! And I don't know the difference between animals and people? What if my husband is an aardvark, and I don't even know it! OH MY GOODNESS, what if I've been screwin' an aardvark?!!
Well, they do have a two-foot long tongue. :wink:

- T

[familyof6]

Well, they do have a two-foot long tongue. :wink:

- T

Crap....he is an aardvark. :uhoh:

[technomage]

Crap....he is an aardvark. :uhoh:
:rofl:

[supersport]

Tiggy: How do you propose to debate something you don't even understand?

I do understand it. I understand it more than you do. I dare you to debate me over human origins.

You're a coward, and I'm telling you to your virtual face. Here is a *partial* list of the debate questions you have run away from:

How do you determine if a scientific theory is a 'lie from the Devil'?


Any theory that says we evolved from pond scum or that humans are apes is a lie from the devil

Why have no Creationists in the last 100 years done your Lamarkism experiments?

I've already explained that. Why must you lie and say that I haven't? Oh that's right -- because you have no credibility.

I explained to you that creationists have been hoodwinked by evolutionists into believing that microevolution via selection is valid. Thus, there was no reason for them to test a hypothesis that they accepted. The reality is, though, that selectionism is a farce....and my prediction is that in the not-too-distant-future it will be outed as such.

Where is your evidence that Dr. Gerson actually found a cure for most forms of advanced cancer, and all forms of tuberculosis, fibromyalgia, arthritis (both osteo- and rheumatoid), and diabetes?

The evidence is all around if you care to investigate it.

http://www.thegersonmiracle.org/

sorry, loser.

Why should anyone expect to use radiocarbon dating to date an object with NO organic carbon in it?

I have shown you how dinosaur fossils DO HAVE CARBON in them...in fact they've dated at less than 12,000 years old. Many many dinosaurs have been dated at less than 15,000 years old. Sorry, loser.

How does the single paper you cited support Lipton's grandiose claims?

Lipton doesn't need some dumb atheist paper to support his anti-darwinian views. If you have issues with what his assertions are then prove him wrong. of course...you can't. Loser.

Where is your evidence that evolutionists want to deport Christians from the US, and take away their voting rights, and close their churches?

I never said they did. I merely asked YOU those questions. Sorry, loser.

Now you want to start *another* discussion that you'll undoubtedly bail out on too. Right. :ahem: Supersport, why don't you tell the board why you were banned from other E/C discussion sites?
It was because of your dishonest habit of starting threads and then abandoning them when the questions you couldn't answer made you look like an idiot.

That is not reason to be banned. If anyone deserves to be banned its you for your foul-mouthed, loser name-calling.

So SS, you gonna stay a disingenuous ignorant Bozo, or are you read up on Human evolution on your own, and then maybe finish one of the debates you started but ran from?

You keep saying that...but here I am, loser.

[Gaytheist]

Storico:
newsflashes:
Homo sapiens is a species of ape.
There are several other species of ape.
No species ever gives birth to an animal of a different species.
No non-human ape ever has or ever will give birth to a Homo sapiens, and vice versa.
Human beings and all other apes are animals. Other living things include plants and fungi.
Glad to be of service. You might also try Middle School biology.

[Gaytheist]

[B]
I explained to you that creationists have been hoodwinked by evolutionists into believing that microevolution via selection is valid. Thus, there was no reason for them to test a hypothesis that they accepted. The reality is, though, that selectionism is a farce....and my prediction is that in the not-too-distant-future it will be outed as such.

How soon do you predict this will happen?

sport: little hint: When you start calling people names, it's a dead give-away that you've lost the argument, and have no other means of refuting them.

[supersport]

[QUOTE=Gaytheist]Storico:
newsflashes:
Homo sapiens is a species of ape.

Prove we evolved from any other primate. I'd like to see proof of a common ancestor and I'd like to see the bones leading from whatever that is to homo erectus.


There are several other species of ape.

we are not an "ape."...and the only way you can prove we are an ape is to show the gradual transition.


No species ever gives birth to an animal of a different species.

I'll agree with that.


No non-human ape ever has or ever will give birth to a Homo sapiens, and vice versa.

I agree with that.

Human beings and all other apes are animals. Other living things include plants and fungi.

I agree with that.


Glad to be of service. You might also try Middle School biology.

You've got some proving to do to back up your assertion.

[Carico]

I hate to clue you in, Carico, but no scientist says that apes bred human beings.

:lol: Sorry but when they claim that humans were descendants of apes, they are absolutely claiming that apes bred human descendants...unless they think that humans came out of the toenails of their ape ancestors. :smile:

[Storico]

Storico:
newsflashes:
Homo sapiens is a species of ape.
There are several other species of ape.
No species ever gives birth to an animal of a different species.
No non-human ape ever has or ever will give birth to a Homo sapiens, and vice versa.
Human beings and all other apes are animals. Other living things include plants and fungi.
Glad to be of service. You might also try Middle School biology.


Uhhhm.... I said nothing in this thread... I like you, but please never make this mistake again. :eek: :lol: That scared me. :wink:

[Carico]

I hate to clue Carico up, but we evolutionist know that apes do not breed human beings. Obviously then, there is something wrong with your reasoning if we know what you know and we still accept evolution.

Therefore Carico is being silly.

(Your name is not Kendemyer is it?)

So...then how did humans become the descendants of apes? :smile:

[Carico]

Your biggest worry should not be whether you are descended from apes, but whether you'll be overtaken by them. Get off my internet.

Sorry, but that doesn't prove that apes can breed humans as descendants. Sorry. :wink:

[Carico]

[QUOTE=Gaytheist]Storico:
newsflashes:
Homo sapiens is a species of ape.

Prove we evolved from any other primate. I'd like to see proof of a common ancestor and I'd like to see the bones leading from whatever that is to homo erectus.


There are several other species of ape.

we are not an "ape."...and the only way you can prove we are an ape is to show the gradual transition.


No species ever gives birth to an animal of a different species.

I'll agree with that.


No non-human ape ever has or ever will give birth to a Homo sapiens, and vice versa.

I agree with that.

Human beings and all other apes are animals. Other living things include plants and fungi.

I agree with that.


Glad to be of service. You might also try Middle School biology.

You've got some proving to do to back up your assertion.

Hey Sport! So have evolutionists yet seen that animals don't produce humans as descendants? or are they still in the dark about that? :lol:

[technomage]

:lol: Sorry but when they claim that humans were descendants of apes, they are absolutely claiming that apes bred human descendants...

So why don't you indicate to me precisely where evolution says we are descendant from apes?

[Tiggy]

Tiggy: How do you determine if a scientific theory is a 'lie from the Devil'?
Supersport: Any theory that says we evolved from pond scum or that humans are apes is a lie from the devil

Cowardly evasion #1. The question was not what do you think is a 'lie from the Devil', but how did you determine it came from the Devil.

T: Why have no Creationists in the last 100 years done your Lamarkism experiments?
SS: I've already explained that. Why must you lie and say that I haven't? Oh that's right -- because you have no credibility.
I explained to you that creationists have been hoodwinked by evolutionists into believing that microevolution via selection is valid. Thus, there was no reason for them to test a hypothesis that they accepted. The reality is, though, that selectionism is a farce....and my prediction is that in the not-too-distant-future it will be outed as such.

Cowardly evasion #2. So you are saying you're the only Creationist in the last 100 years smart enough to not be 'hoodwinked' :lol: :lol: :lol: Funny, I can almost believe that. :ahem:

T: Where is your evidence that Dr. Gerson actually found a cure for most forms of advanced cancer, and all forms of tuberculosis, fibromyalgia, arthritis (both osteo- and rheumatoid), and diabetes?
SS: The evidence is all around if you care to investigate it.

http://www.thegersonmiracle.org/

Cowardly evasion #3. Personal anecdotes from the conman's own web site are not evidence.

T: Why should anyone expect to use radiocarbon dating to date an object with NO organic carbon in it?
SS: I have shown you how dinosaur fossils DO HAVE CARBON in them...in fact they've dated at less than 12,000 years old. Many many dinosaurs have been dated at less than 15,000 years old. Sorry, loser.

Cowardly evasion #4. You have shown no evidence of organic carbon that was part of the bone. You have been show evidence from the lab itself that the samples dated suffered external carbon contamination.

T: How does the single paper you cited support Lipton's grandiose claims?
SS: Lipton doesn't need some dumb atheist paper to support his anti-darwinian views. If you have issues with what his assertions are then prove him wrong. of course...you can't. Loser.

Cowardly evasion #5. You can provide no explanation of how the data supports the conclusion. BTW, the paper you cited was co-authored by Lipton himself. Is he a 'dumb atheist' to whom you're referring? :lol: :lol: :lol:

T: Where is your evidence that evolutionists want to deport Christians from the US, and take away their voting rights, and close their churches?
SS: I never said they did. I merely asked YOU those questions. Sorry, loser.

Cowardly evasion #6. You stated them as fact, then asked me to justify them.

T: Now you want to start *another* discussion that you'll undoubtedly bail out on too. Right. Supersport, why don't you tell the board why you were banned from other E/C discussion sites?
It was because of your dishonest habit of starting threads and then abandoning them when the questions you couldn't answer made you look like an idiot.
SS: That is not reason to be banned. If anyone deserves to be banned its you for your foul-mouthed, loser name-calling.

Apparently it was, because you were certainly banned for it.

T: So SS, you gonna stay a disingenuous ignorant Bozo, or are you read up on Human evolution on your own, and then maybe finish one of the debates you started but ran from?
SS: You keep saying that...but here I am, loser.

OK supersport, disingenuous ignorant Bozo it is. Works for me, I like watching funny clowns. :wink:

- Tiggy

[supersport]

[QUOTE=supersport]

Hey Sport! So have evolutionists yet seen that animals don't produce humans as descendants? or are they still in the dark about that? :lol:

hey Carico...:)...welcome to TW! Beware..you've entered a zone where there are numerous people who believe we are the end result of unidentified primate semon. :eek:

[Teallaura]

Okay children, let's play nice, shall we? Thus far I haven't seen one that crosses the line, but let's lose the calling people liars either directly or by strong implication, okay?

And play nice means everyone - let's not have this thread wind up in the Locker Room, okay?

[supersport]

Cowardly evasion #1. The question was not what do you think is a 'lie from the Devil', but how did you determine it came from the Devil.

If it contradicts God's word in the Bible it is a lie.

T: Why have no Creationists in the last 100 years done your Lamarkism experiments?
SS: I've already explained that. Why must you lie and say that I haven't? Oh that's right -- because you have no credibility.
I explained to you that creationists have been hoodwinked by evolutionists into believing that microevolution via selection is valid. Thus, there was no reason for them to test a hypothesis that they accepted. The reality is, though, that selectionism is a farce....and my prediction is that in the not-too-distant-future it will be outed as such.

Cowardly evasion #2. So you are saying you're the only Creationist in the last 100 years smart enough to not be 'hoodwinked' :lol: :lol: :lol: Funny, I can almost believe that. :ahem:

No I didn't say that. Try reading what I did say.

T: Where is your evidence that Dr. Gerson actually found a cure for most forms of advanced cancer, and all forms of tuberculosis, fibromyalgia, arthritis (both osteo- and rheumatoid), and diabetes?
SS: The evidence is all around if you care to investigate it.

http://www.thegersonmiracle.org/

Cowardly evasion #3. Personal anecdotes from the conman's own web site are not evidence.

http://curezone.org/forums/fm.asp?i=788296#i

Hi folks,
I don't know how many of you are still here that remember me,But I'm still kickin'.
Prognosis of 6 months to a year to live didn't quite pan out.Its been nearly 3 years now.
I just got back from MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston and had my 6 wk. scans.
Head to toe and ALL CLEAN.I am now bumped to a 3 month check-up schedule.
I still have had NO chemo or radiation treatments.I Just had Stereotactic surgury to stop the immediate danger of 2 brain tumors. The rest of my Treatment I took into my own hands and started living a non-toxic life style.
I havn't checked in here in quite a while,I just had to share my good news and let everyone who is stressing his or her cancer situation that there is hope and it lies mostly in your own hands.
God Bless and Stay Healthy,
Butch

T: Why should anyone expect to use radiocarbon dating to date an object with NO organic carbon in it?
SS: I have shown you how dinosaur fossils DO HAVE CARBON in them...in fact they've dated at less than 12,000 years old. Many many dinosaurs have been dated at less than 15,000 years old. Sorry, loser.

Cowardly evasion #4. You have shown no evidence of organic carbon that was part of the bone. You have been show evidence from the lab itself that the samples dated suffered external carbon contamination.

lol....you are a work of crapola art. Care to back up that assertion?

The rest of your post is completely worthless.

[Tiggy]

hey Carico...:)...welcome to TW! Beware..you've entered a zone where there are numerous people who believe we are the end result of unidentified primate semon.
As opposed to those whose beliefs are based on an unidentified Prelate sermon? :wink:

- T

[Tiggy]

Sorry, but that doesn't prove that apes can breed humans as descendants. Sorry.
Carico, you are woefully confused in your terminology.

Humans, chimpanzees, and gorillas are all apes in the same way tigers, lions, and your fluffy little house kitty are all cats.

You wouldn't say "cats can't breed lions", so why would you say "apes can't breed Humans"?

Lions, tigers, and Fluffy all share a common ancestor - a proto-feline species that lived millions of years ago. At no time did that ancestor give birth to a lion, or Fluffy. Instead, separate lineages of cats slowly evolved over time into what we see today.

In the same way, Humans, chimps and gorillas all share a common ancestor that lived millions of years ago. All the genetic and fossil evidence shows the human-chimp split happened about 4-6 million years in the past, from a common ancestor called Australopithecus. No Australopithecus ever gave birth to a modern Human. Instead, a separate lineage that began there slowly evolved into Humans we see today.

There is lots of scientific evidence for this. I provided a good link earlier in this thread to a website called Becoming Human. If you are serious about learning, I suggest you check it out.

- Tiggy

[Tiggy]

Tiggy: Cowardly evasion #1. The question was not what do you think is a 'lie from the Devil', but how did you determine it came from the Devil.
Supersport: If it contradicts God's word in the Bible it is a lie.

Cowardly evasion #7. Still no evidence of how it came from the Devil.

T: Cowardly evasion #2. So you are saying you're the only Creationist in the last 100 years smart enough to not be 'hoodwinked' Funny, I can almost believe that.
SS: No I didn't say that. Try reading what I did say.

Cowardly evasion #8. Still no explanation as to why the creationists who aren't hoodwinked don't do the experiment today.

T: Cowardly evasion #3. Personal anecdotes from the conman's own web site are not evidence.
SS: (snip another personal anecdote)

Cowardly evasion #9. Personal anecdotes from any web site are not evidence.

T: Cowardly evasion #4. You have shown no evidence of organic carbon that was part of the bone. You have been show evidence from the lab itself that the samples dated suffered external carbon contamination.
SS: lol....you are a work of crapola art. Care to back up that assertion?

Cowardly evasion #10. Sure thing SS. JonF provided you evidence that the whole thing was a creationist fraud here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1781364&postcount=152)
The samples were contaminated, the lab knew they were contaminated, the YECs were told by the lab that the samples were contaminated, but the YECs used the results anyway. Pretty dishonest, eh?

SS: The rest of your post is completely worthless.

...and so supersport chickens out and runs away again. :lol: :lol: :lol:

- Tiggy

[wattsr1]

"Paranoid" seems like the correct word to use. It would be no different than if someone thought ghosts were inhabiting their house....which caused them to jump every time they heard a noise. A sort of paranoid delusion sets in.

So instead of strange noises, you guys seem to jump at new people, afraid that we might be the dreaded kendemyer.

I can understand that option 1) means we are "afraid" of the "dreaded kendemyer". But why does option 2) necessarily mean that we are “afraid” of “the dreaded kendemyer”?

[wattsr1]

So...then how did humans become the descendants of apes? :smile:

The most widely accepted theory for how these changes occurred is Darwinian evolution – namely that

1) variation existed within a population of ancient ape like animals (variation is an observed phenomenon)

2) this population speciated (a phenomenon scientists are just beginning to understand at the molecular level)

3) over time, one of these lineages accumulated a different set of variations to the other lineage and these variations were selected for through the differing environments the two lineages found themselves in (natural selection, also an observed phenomenon)

4) one of these lineages continued on to be the modern apes (and relatives),

5) the other lineage continued on to be modern humans (and relatives).

I am happy with that explanation although I doubt that it happened as gradually as perhaps Darwin may have believed. There is some discussion on how gradual Darwinian gradualism really is.

There is some evidence, recently announced, that, at the time of speciation, the “humans” and their “ape” sisters, actually continued to interbreed.

There is also good evidence that the human #2 chromosome formed from a merger of two ape chromosomes – that is, at the speciation event or perhaps after it, two ancestor chromosomes fused to make one human chromosome. This difference in chromosomes is one of the things that define the difference between us. It’s occurrence would not have been an example of Darwinian gradualism as Darwin envisaged it. But then, science at the time of Darwin knew nothing of atoms, molecules, genes, chromosomes etc. See:-

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2000-01/947796399.Ge.r.html



Well Carico, do you have an idea for how humans came to be and do you have any evidence to support that idea? If so, what is your idea and what is your evidence? Let’s discuss our ideas and evidence.

[kiwimac]

Crap....he is an aardvark. :uhoh:

:lol: :lol: :teeth:

[Natural Skeptic]

I do understand it. I understand it more than you do. I dare you to debate me over human origins.

Perhaps you two should go to the Gym, then?

Any theory that says we evolved from pond scum or that humans are apes is a lie from the devil

:rofl:

I explained to you that creationists have been hoodwinked by evolutionists into believing that microevolution via selection is valid. Thus, there was no reason for them to test a hypothesis that they accepted. The reality is, though, that selectionism is a farce....and my prediction is that in the not-too-distant-future it will be outed as such.

Than how do you explain antibiotic resistance in bacteria?

The evidence [that Dr. Gerson actually found a cure for most forms of advanced cancer, and all forms of tuberculosis, fibromyalgia, arthritis (both osteo- and rheumatoid), and diabetes] is all around if you care to investigate it.

http://www.thegersonmiracle.org/

First, why did you post a link to a movie/documentary when you could've at least given one of several tretment centers in Mexico with descent websites? Second, it is ironic that the majority of recorded cases using the Gerson treatment also used conventional medicine during the entire process of the Gerson treatment, thus rendering their results ambiguous concerning the validity of the Gerson treatment. Also, there is a reason why the treatment is actually illegal in the United States as a form of cancer cure...hmmmm...

(Source (http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/gerson/patient) )


I have shown you how dinosaur fossils DO HAVE CARBON in them...in fact they've dated at less than 12,000 years old. Many many dinosaurs have been dated at less than 15,000 years old. Sorry, loser.

I guess it's time to do a search of the forum, then, to address this issue to see if it's legit or not.

That is not reason to be banned.

Starting threads and topics without the intent to add to the discussion is not only purposeless to the individual but annoys the group and goes against most terms of use agreements. Hence, worthy of banning.

[Roy]

Many many dinosaurs have been dated at less than 15,000 years old.

Cite three.

Roy

[Gaytheist]

Uhhhm.... I said nothing in this thread... I like you, but please never make this mistake again. :eek: :lol: That scared me. :wink:
oops, deepest apologies, and the regard is mutual. You can see the source of my error, (other than my own imbecility) Carico, Storico...

[Storico]

oops, deepest apologies, and the regard is mutual. You can see the source of my error, (other than my own imbecility) Carico, Storico...

:lol:

I thought it was kinda funny... but geeeze... those two names are similar. C'est la vie!

[Lili]

I hate to clue evolutionists in on what even children know; Apes don't breed human beings any more than skunks, rabbits, or hippos breed human beings. :lol: But since evolutionists don't know the difference between animals and humans then I can see why they're confused on this issue. So I suggest that evolutionists go back and learn the birds and the bees to understand what each species breeds, before they think they can understand anything beyond that point. :wink:
Oh, dear. Please read a book on evolution, as it is obvious that you have very little understanding of it. I advise you to not try to refute any scientific theory unless you understand it well.

[FreezBee]

I hate to clue evolutionists in on what even children know; Apes don't breed human beings any more than skunks, rabbits, or hippos breed human beings.

As Gaytheist said, humans are apes, so (some) apes do breed human beings.

So I suggest that evolutionists go back and learn the birds and the bees to understand what each species breeds, before they think they can understand anything beyond that point. :wink:

Umm, do you mean that birds breed bees, or that bees breeds birds?


- FreezBee

[technomage]

Umm, do you mean that birds breed bees, or that bees breeds birds?

Try saying that five times fast! :lol:

[Soundsurfr]

I hate to clue evolutionists in on what even children know; Apes don't breed human beings any more than skunks, rabbits, or hippos breed human beings. :lol: But since evolutionists don't know the difference between animals and humans then I can see why they're confused on this issue. So I suggest that evolutionists go back and learn the birds and the bees to understand what each species breeds, before they think they can understand anything beyond that point. :wink:

Whoa.

HOLD the BUS.

I NEVER thought of that. :huh: That is just plain PROFOUND, dude.

JEEBIZ. Man, I can think of A LOT of people who are going to be DEVASTATED by this. Or would have been if they were still alive.

People like Martha Chase (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_Chase). Or Linda Buck (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linda_B._Buck). Or Michael Engel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_S._Engel). Or Francois Jacob (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fran%C3%A7ois_Jacob). Or Ernst Mayr (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Mayr). (There are thousands more, but I don't have time to list them.)

I mean, these people are heads of universities, and Nobel Prize Winners for cryin' out loud. Some of them hold multiple PHD's. But OH BOY ARE THEY STUPID. How did they get to where they are? I mean, it's ridiculous. These evolutionists really don't know the difference between humans and animals. It's as plain as the nose on your face, really.

But Carico knows. Thank you SO much for pointing out the obvious to us idiots.

Thank God for Carico.

:cheers:

[Soundsurfr]

So...then how did humans become the descendants of apes? :smile:

You see, this is the wisdom I'm talking about, right here.

Carico, who is genuinely interested in researching and finding out why scientists believe humans are the descendants of apes, knows better than to look it up in a science text. Surely that is the last place where you might actually stumble upon a valid and accurate explanation of evolution theory.

No, the REAL source of this information lies within a theological internet forum. This is clearly the best place to obtain such information.

I applaud your genius.

:bow:

[Carico]

So why don't you indicate to me precisely where evolution says we are descendant from apes?

So where do evolutionists claim that man came from? The evolutionists on the History channel on the show "Ape to Man" said that evolutionists claim that humans came from apes. So how, praytell can a human come from an ape without the mating and breeding between their ape ancestors? :wink: Unless evolutionists don't claim that humans came from apes. So which is it? :wink:

[Carico]

You see, this is the wisdom I'm talking about, right here.

Carico, who is genuinely interested in researching and finding out why scientists believe humans are the descendants of apes, knows better than to look it up in a science text. Surely that is the last place where you might actually stumble upon a valid and accurate explanation of evolution theory.

No, the REAL source of this information lies within a theological internet forum. This is clearly the best place to obtain such information.

I applaud your genius.

:bow:

Good point. Evolutionists first have to udnerstand how descendants are produced before they can claim that apes produced human descendants. Then once they've figured that out, they'll see that apes don't breed skunks, zebras, homonids, neanderthals or anything but apes in reality, only in the imagination. :wink:

[Carico]

As Gaytheist said, humans are apes, so (some) apes do breed human beings.



Umm, do you mean that birds breed bees, or that bees breeds birds?


- FreezBee

Only an evolutionist would be confused about this issue. :wink:

[Gaytheist]

Carico:
Your confusion and ignorance are so profound that it is hard to even respond within the context of reality. Are you perhaps a relatively young and not yet educated person? Maybe home-schooled? If so, it is nothing to be ashamed of, we are all ignorant of more than we are not. However, to discard a theory that is accepted by the consensus of experts, when you do not understand the theory or the evidence, is not ignorance, it is something worse. So before you reject or try to argue against ToE, I strongly advise you to learn what it is, what it says, and what the evidence is in favor of it.

Here's some small things to get you started:
1. There is no such thing as an evolutionist. There are scientists, and the type of scientist who works on, uses, accepts and expands the Theory of Evolution is called a biologist. So the people you are arguing against are called biologists, specifically, Evolutionary Biologists. The rest of us just read what these scientists write and learn from that; we don't figure it out ourselves. I am a long way from being an evolutionary biologist, and I don't know whether there are any here at TWeb.

2. Science never deals in proof. Science is about evidence. When the evidence for a theory becomes overwhelming, it becomes accepted, is considered robust, and is used and relied on for further developments in that field. Nevertheless, it is continuously fine-tuned, adjusted, refined, and sometimes overcome by new developments in that field. Scientific knowledge is always provisional, never absolute, and is always subject to improvement. This applies to all science, from geology to electro-magnetics to biology. It is part of how science is done. So you will never get proof for this or any other scientific proposition.

3. The specific question you are asking about, Human Evolution and relationship to other primates, is one of the most studied, evidenced, complicated and evolving fields in science. We know a lot, but not everything, about the sequence of events, and each year brings new discoveries and more refining of this subject. The very short version is that scientists believe that around 5 million years ago, the evolutionary tree split into two branches, one of which eventually resulted in chimpanzees, and one of which eventually resulted in human beings. The primate from which both of these branches evolved no longer exists; but has become extinct.

It is impossible for me or anyone to supply you with the evidence that supports all of this. It literally would fill a library. Thousands of books, thousands of articles, hundreds of fossils, etc. Much of this evidence is highly technical and has to do with obscure corners of biology such as diverging retroviruses and molecular clocks. There is an awful lot of it, and while some of it is easy to understand, some of it really takes some work.

Nevertheless, if you are sincerely interested in reviewing this evidence, I am willing to spend some time digging it up and posting it here for discussion. I do not want to waste my time on this project if, as so many creationists, you are really not interested in the evidence. That has been my repeated experience here at TWeb.

No member of any species ever gives birth to a descendant of another species. Rather there is a minute difference between every parent and every child. After many generations, especially if one part of the breeding population is isolated in a different environment, the descendants are different enough from their distant ancestors that scientists call them a different species. This applies to apes and human as well. It's a bit like the weather warming up gradually in the spring. It goes up a degree here and there, and after a few months we call it summer. But winter does not give rise to summer directly, and no chimpanzee has ever given birth to a human being.

Good luck with your education.

[technomage]

So where do evolutionists claim that man came from? The evolutionists on the History channel on the show "Ape to Man" said that evolutionists claim that humans came from apes. So how, praytell can a human come from an ape without the mating and breeding between their ape ancestors? :wink: Unless evolutionists don't claim that humans came from apes. So which is it? :wink:

A television show is not the Theory of Evolution. However, do you know what the definition of the word "Hominid" is?

[Jme]

Carico=caricature

That's the first thing I thought when I saw the name and the OP.

[Carico]

Carico:
Your confusion and ignorance are so profound that it is hard to even respond within the context of reality. Are you perhaps a relatively young and not yet educated person? Maybe home-schooled? If so, it is nothing to be ashamed of, we are all ignorant of more than we are not. However, to discard a theory that is accepted by the consensus of experts, when you do not understand the theory or the evidence, is not ignorance, it is something worse. So before you reject or try to argue against ToE, I strongly advise you to learn what it is, what it says, and what the evidence is in favor of it.

Here's some small things to get you started:
1. There is no such thing as an evolutionist. There are scientists, and the type of scientist who works on, uses, accepts and expands the Theory of Evolution is called a biologist. So the people you are arguing against are called biologists, specifically, Evolutionary Biologists. The rest of us just read what these scientists write and learn from that; we don't figure it out ourselves. I am a long way from being an evolutionary biologist, and I don't know whether there are any here at TWeb.

2. Science never deals in proof. Science is about evidence. When the evidence for a theory becomes overwhelming, it becomes accepted, is considered robust, and is used and relied on for further developments in that field. Nevertheless, it is continuously fine-tuned, adjusted, refined, and sometimes overcome by new developments in that field. Scientific knowledge is always provisional, never absolute, and is always subject to improvement. This applies to all science, from geology to electro-magnetics to biology. It is part of how science is done. So you will never get proof for this or any other scientific proposition.

3. The specific question you are asking about, Human Evolution and relationship to other primates, is one of the most studied, evidenced, complicated and evolving fields in science. We know a lot, but not everything, about the sequence of events, and each year brings new discoveries and more refining of this subject. The very short version is that scientists believe that around 5 million years ago, the evolutionary tree split into two branches, one of which eventually resulted in chimpanzees, and one of which eventually resulted in human beings. The primate from which both of these branches evolved no longer exists; but has become extinct.

It is impossible for me or anyone to supply you with the evidence that supports all of this. It literally would fill a library. Thousands of books, thousands of articles, hundreds of fossils, etc. Much of this evidence is highly technical and has to do with obscure corners of biology such as diverging retroviruses and molecular clocks. There is an awful lot of it, and while some of it is easy to understand, some of it really takes some work.

Nevertheless, if you are sincerely interested in reviewing this evidence, I am willing to spend some time digging it up and posting it here for discussion. I do not want to waste my time on this project if, as so many creationists, you are really not interested in the evidence. That has been my repeated experience here at TWeb.

No member of any species ever gives birth to a descendant of another species. Rather there is a minute difference between every parent and every child. After many generations, especially if one part of the breeding population is isolated in a different environment, the descendants are different enough from their distant ancestors that scientists call them a different species. This applies to apes and human as well. It's a bit like the weather warming up gradually in the spring. It goes up a degree here and there, and after a few months we call it summer. But winter does not give rise to summer directly, and no chimpanzee has ever given birth to a human being.

Good luck with your education.

Sorry but I grew up hearing the teaching of evolution and it's poppycock. If scientists don't have proof for it, then it's nothing more than a fantasy, and should be treated as such, not accepted by people who mislead the public into thinking that it is a fact, which many people do.

Fantasies do not belong in science books that are taught in the public schools, they belong in science fiction books and movies. children hear that apes breed humans as descendants and accept it as a fact just like they accept that molcueles and atoms are facts. So this hoax should never be taught in the public schools because it is an impossible theory and not even in the rhealm of reality. :ahem:

[technomage]

If scientists don't have proof for it, then it's nothing more than a fantasy, and should be treated as such, not accepted by people who mislead the public into thinking that it is a fact, which many people do.

There are two meanings of the word "proof" in the conversation between you and Gaytheist.
* As Gaytheist is using the word, she is quite correct--science does not use the word "proof" unless they're measuring the alcohol content of a beverage.
* As you are using the word, science does have oproof of evolution--lots of it. Literally tons of it, if it were printed on paper.

You say "If scientists don't have proof for it, then it's nothing more than a fantasy." We have the proof. You simply reject it--that's deliberate ignorance on your part, not a problem on the science end.

[Soundsurfr]

Sorry but I grew up hearing the teaching of evolution and it's poppycock. If scientists don't have proof for it, then it's nothing more than a fantasy, and should be treated as such, not accepted by people who mislead the public into thinking that it is a fact, which many people do.

No, Caricature, that's not the criteria. Whether or not a scientist has proof enough of a theory to unravel your pre-conditioned religious agenda and lame-brained arguments from incredulity is not the determining factor as to whether it should be pursued scientifically.

The true test of the veracity of any scientific theory is its ability to be applied to the real world to achieve real world solutions to real world problems. Here is where your little paradigm self-destructs. Evolution theory and mechanics are being applied in situations that go far beyond your ability to comprehend. They are used to develop software, create vaccines, even generate artwork. Maybe you can write us up a list of the applications where "creation science" is being applied. We'll try not to fall asleep while we wait.

If you want to continue to believe that the earth is square, it's really no sweat off anyone's back. But if you think you can run around like an idiot yelling "poppycock!" and expect anyone with any real expertise in biology to take you seriously, you're delusional.

[Cyrus Johnson]

Sorry but I grew up hearing the teaching of evolution and it's poppycock.

Looks like we can all go home now. No answer to that argument.

If scientists don't have proof for it, then it's nothing more than a fantasy, and should be treated as such, not accepted by people who mislead the public into thinking that it is a fact, which many people do.

It's as proven as any other theory in science. Actually, it's better proven than most.

Fantasies do not belong in science books that are taught in the public schools, they belong in science fiction books and movies.

Or in Holy Books. Except for yours of course.

children hear that apes breed humans as descendants and accept it as a fact just like they accept that molcueles and atoms are facts.

Have you ever seen an atom? Has anyone ever seen a molecule of oxygen reacting with a two molecules of hydrogen to make two molecules of water?

The only reasonable biological conclusion from the extensive anatomical and molecular facts are that humans and chimps shared a common ancestor some time around 6-7 million years ago. If you have a better empirically testable biological explanation, let's hear it.

So this hoax should never be taught in the public schools because it is an impossible theory and not even in the rhealm of reality. :ahem:

Do you think microevolution is possible? If so, why?

[Gaytheist]

Sorry but I grew up hearing the teaching of evolution and it's poppycock. If scientists don't have proof for it, then it's nothing more than a fantasy, and should be treated as such, not accepted by people who mislead the public into thinking that it is a fact, which many people do.

Fantasies do not belong in science books that are taught in the public schools, they belong in science fiction books and movies. children hear that apes breed humans as descendants and accept it as a fact just like they accept that molcueles and atoms are facts. So this hoax should never be taught in the public schools because it is an impossible theory and not even in the rhealm of reality. :ahem:
No, you're wrong. There is another category, that which is not proven, but which is supported by evidence. That is the category which is scientific knowledge. This is true of all scientific knowledge, from the theory of relativity to the origin of disease. It is all based on evidence, none of it is proven, and it is all provisional. This is what is called "science" and so is taught in science classes. In this respect the theory of evolution is the same as everything else which is held to be true, used, relied on, and taught as science. It is not different from Gravity Theory or Germ Theory. If you reject ToE because it is not proven, you must reject all of science. You are of course free to do so, but
(1) stop typing immediately!
(2) don't try to say your religion beliefs have anything to do with science, or have any scientific basis. Of course they don't.

Proof is for math, evidence is for science.

You are again demonstrating your ignorance, which is curable, but does not help your case. I strongly advise you to learn something about what you are trying to refute; it only makes you look silly.

[Gaytheist]

newsflash: evolution is as much as fact as are molecules and atoms, and for very similar reasons.

[Minnesota]

If scientists don't have proof for it, then it's nothing more than a fantasy, and should be treated as such, not accepted by people who mislead the public into thinking that it is a fact, which many people do.
See. That's exactly what Gaytheist is talking about. You obviously have not read a thing on evolution other than what some fundi creationist has handed you, because if you did you would know that scientists do have proof for it.

Why not save yourself a lot of invited harassment here and take a couple of weeks off to read what science has to say about evolution and then come back with something other than misinformation and inane misconceptions. As it is, your statements are painting you as a moron, which I'm sure you're not. Your choice of course: Moron or informed dissenter.

[Gaytheist]

Scientists never claim absolute knowledge of nature or the behavior of the subject of the field of study. Certain scientific "facts" are linguistic (such as the fact that humans are mammals), but these are true only by definition, and they reflect only truths relative to agreed convention. These deductive classificational facts may be absolute, but they only say something about human language and expression, but not about the external world. This part of science is like mathematics.

Another part of science is inductive, and attempts to say something about the external world which is not true by definition, but can be shown to be true in specific instances by experiment or observation. Unlike a mathematical proof, a scientific theory which makes statements about nature in an inductive way, is always open to falsification, if new evidence is presented. Even the most basic and fundamental theories may turn out to be imperfect if new observations are inconsistent with them. Critical to this process is making every relevant aspect of research publicly available, which permits peer review of published results, and also allows ongoing review and repeating of experiments and observations by multiple researchers operating independently of one another. Only by fulfilling these expectations can it be determined how reliable the experimental results are for potential use by others.

[supersport]

Scientists never claim absolute knowledge of nature or the behavior of the subject of the field of study. Certain scientific "facts" are linguistic (such as the fact that humans are mammals), but these are true only by definition, and they reflect only truths relative to agreed convention. These deductive classificational facts may be absolute, but they only say something about human language and expression, but not about the external world. This part of science is like mathematics.

Another part of science is inductive, and attempts to say something about the external world which is not true by definition, but can be shown to be true in specific instances by experiment or observation. Unlike a mathematical proof, a scientific theory which makes statements about nature in an inductive way, is always open to falsification, if new evidence is presented. Even the most basic and fundamental theories may turn out to be imperfect if new observations are inconsistent with them. Critical to this process is making every relevant aspect of research publicly available, which permits peer review of published results, and also allows ongoing review and repeating of experiments and observations by multiple researchers operating independently of one another. Only by fulfilling these expectations can it be determined how reliable the experimental results are for potential use by others.

Part of science is disproving competing or alternative theories, which your "science" has never done. Ever. There is no excuse for such blatant dishonesty.

[technomage]

Part of science is disproving competing or alternative theories, which your "science" has never done.

False, SS. Completely, totally, and blatantly false. Science is not in the busines of disproving "competing or alternate theories" unless those theories can be expressed as a proper hypothesis.

[Gaytheist]

Part of science is disproving competing or alternative theories, which your "science" has never done. Ever. There is no excuse for such blatant dishonesty.
I don't have a "science," since I am not a scientist. What competing theories are you referring to? Not creationism, I hope, since that is not a scientific theory at all, and is not falsifiable. Are you accusing me of being dishonest? In what regard? I take umbrage at such accusations.
ARe you against science in general, or just biology?

[supersport]

False, SS. Completely, totally, and blatantly false. Science is not in the busines of disproving "competing or alternate theories" unless those theories can be expressed as a proper hypothesis.

Look, science has cursed out Lamarckism for the past 100 years -- instead insisting on Darwinism. But this is based on nothing but an atheist world-view. If science was truly non-partisan, they'd disprove lamarck's theory. Instead, they just close their eyes, cover their ears, shout "la la la la la la" and pretend lamarckism doesn't exist. There's nothing at all scientific about ToE....it's never been proven and the alternative has never been disproven, even though doing so would be so incredibly simple.

Some "science."

[supersport]

Darwinism says traits arise first, before an environmental change, only then to be selected. Lamarckism says the opposite: that the environment changes first, only to be followed up by new traits in organisms.

So considering science has long scoffed at lamarckism,would someone please read the following link and explain to me how the butterflys did what they did?

http://www.arachnology.org/monteiro/Press/2002_TREE_story/The_Hindu/2002040400080400.htm

I suggest butterflys are not unique, that however the butterflys emerged with new traits is how other animals evolve as well.

[technomage]

Look, science has cursed out Lamarckism for the past 100 years -- instead insisting on Darwinism.

Supersport, Darwinism didn't disprove Lamarkianism. That was Mendelian Genetics--and Mendel, in case you were not aware, was a Christian. Darwinian evolution works equally well with Mendelian genetics or Lamarkian inherited characteristics.

But this is based on nothing but an atheist world-view.

Again--wrong. Darwinian evolution works equally well with an atheistic or theistic worldview, because science does not, and cannot, address the existance of God.

If science was truly non-partisan, they'd disprove lamarck's theory.

Mendel did. Not Darwin--Mendel.

[geochron]

Darwinism says traits arise first, before an environmental change, only then to be selected. Lamarckism says the opposite: that the environment changes first, only to be followed up by new traits in organisms.

So considering science has long scoffed at lamarckism,would someone please read the following link and explain to me how the butterflys did what they did?

http://www.arachnology.org/monteiro/Press/2002_TREE_story/The_Hindu/2002040400080400.htm

I suggest butterflys are not unique, that however the butterflys emerged with new traits is how other animals evolve as well.

You'll have to be more specific. I don't see anything about butterflies in that article that can't be explained by the standard model.

[Jme]

You'll have to be more specific. I don't see anything about butterflies in that article that can't be explained by the standard model.

He's brought this up before at IIDB so it would be this bit:

For instance, the darker wing patterns that show up in butterflies that emerge in the spring serve to warm up the butterfly faster, whereas butterflies that emerge in the summer have lighter colours.

Also, many of the butterflies that emerge during the wet season in the tropics have very large, conspicuous marks on their wings. These markings deflect the attacks of predators while the butterflies are actively finding mates and laying eggs, while the dry-season cohorts are very cryptic, trying to blend in with their environment and not attract any attention from predators until the rains arrive again.

[geochron]

He's brought this up before at IIDB so it would be this bit:

For instance, the darker wing patterns that show up in butterflies that emerge in the spring serve to warm up the butterfly faster, whereas butterflies that emerge in the summer have lighter colours.

Also, many of the butterflies that emerge during the wet season in the tropics have very large, conspicuous marks on their wings. These markings deflect the attacks of predators while the butterflies are actively finding mates and laying eggs, while the dry-season cohorts are very cryptic, trying to blend in with their environment and not attract any attention from predators until the rains arrive again.



Why is this problematic? There is no reason why a butterfly's wing patterns shouldn't be influenced by the environment experienced during caterpillar and cocoon stages. I don't see why genes that build one sort of wing for the wet season and one for the dry season could not be selected for.

[supersport]

Why is this problematic? There is no reason why a butterfly's wing patterns shouldn't be influenced by the environment experienced during caterpillar and cocoon stages. I don't see why genes that build one sort of wing for the wet season and one for the dry season could not be selected for.


Why is it problematic?

Let me explain it: First of all, forget the genes...we're talking traits here -- there is no reason to talk about genes when a whole population emerges a certain way or another according to background or environmental changes.

Darwinists do not admit that traits arise as a result of an environmental change. If traits were to arise non-randomly it would remove the role of creativity from selection -- which is not an option because darwinists do not admit that evolution of beneficial traits can happen without selection. According to evoltuionists, selection -- and only selection -- is the creative force in evolution. To them, selection is the judge -- not the organism because organisms are just dumb entities that don't know what's good for them. Thus, selection is the creative force because it picks from a pool of randomly-arising traits.

In the case of the butterflys, beneficial traits are forming without selection. Read this paragraph:

Also, many of the butterflies that emerge during the wet season in the tropics have very large, conspicuous marks on their wings. These markings deflect the attacks of predators while the butterflies are actively finding mates and laying eggs, while the dry-season cohorts are very cryptic, trying to blend in with their environment and not attract any attention from predators until the rains arrive again

Remember evolutionists' so-called "proof" of selection -- the peppered moths? They supposedly were evidence of selection because the lighter moths purportedly got eaten at a higher rate....which is how the population changed traits. But in this case, the population of butterflies changed without selection: certain marks on the wings formed according to a wet or dry season. This is not how evolution is supposed to work....which is why, in the article they said this:

The authors note that what's not known about wing patterns in butterflies are the genetic mechanisms that result in the great variety of patterns that exist and an understanding of how those mechanisms have evolved through time.

http://unisci.com/stories/20021/0313021.htm

If selection were the culprit here, there would be no reason to exclaim that the genetic mechanisms responsible for these morphological changes are not "known."

That's why there's a problem.

[technomage]

Darwinists do not admit that traits arise as a result of an environmental change.

Again--completely false. Traits can arise due to environmental change--but these traits are not passed on to the young, because there is no mechanism for passing them on.

[supersport]

Again--completely false. Traits can arise due to environmental change--but these traits are not passed on to the young, because there is no mechanism for passing them on.

You are right. I did not close every gap in my argument.

Ok...I thought it was obvious -- since are talking evolution here -- and we are talking about heritable traits....but I'll rephrase just for you :

Evolutionists do not believe that heritable traits can arise nonrandomly. How's that....?

Besides that, these butterflys emerged with different traits than the mother -- these traits emerged according to season or background conditions. The mother's traits are unimportant here.

Life is a miracle and you evolutionists can't explain it.

[technomage]

Evolutionists do not believe that heritable traits can arise nonrandomly. How's that....?

Again--false. Hereditable traits CAN arise nonrandomly. SSport, mutation is random, but natural selection is not. And mutation is not the only mechanism for new hereditable traits.

Life is a miracle and you evolutionists can't explain it.

Oh, hogwash! I watched miracles all day long today--I have bird feeders out in the yard. The miracle of flight is only the least of the miracles I saw while watching the birds--the fact that they were alive and fighting over the birdseed I left for them was nothing less than a grand miracle. But when I speak of miracles, I've stepped outside of a scientific context.

That's just one of the fundamental errors that you've made in this (and other) discussions, Supersport--you assume that everyone who accepts the theory of evolution is an "atheist." I'm not. I witness the wonder of the Creator every day. But science is limited in what it can discuss--science deals solely with natural phenomena, and is not competent to discuss miracles.

That's why folks like Dawkins irritate me so much--he jibes at faith and wonder while missing the mote in his own sterile eye. But in your own way, you are just as bad, because you turn a blind eye to the wonder of God's handiwork by saying "If science says life didn't happen the way I think it did, then it's a lie of the devil."

[supersport]

Cup of Mystery: Again--false. Hereditable traits CAN arise nonrandomly.

show me over at talk origins how they explain how non-random variation works in their thoery...specifically how selection works in cooperation with NR variation. I'd like a link, please. (How come NONE of the evolutionist books I have talk about nonrandom variation? none.

SSport, mutation is random, but natural selection is not.

Duh


And mutation is not the only mechanism for new hereditable traits.[/B]

Are you referring to recombination? explain further, please.

[Carico]

No, Caricature, that's not the criteria. Whether or not a scientist has proof enough of a theory to unravel your pre-conditioned religious agenda and lame-brained arguments from incredulity is not the determining factor as to whether it should be pursued scientifically.

The true test of the veracity of any scientific theory is its ability to be applied to the real world to achieve real world solutions to real world problems. Here is where your little paradigm self-destructs. Evolution theory and mechanics are being applied in situations that go far beyond your ability to comprehend. They are used to develop software, create vaccines, even generate artwork. Maybe you can write us up a list of the applications where "creation science" is being applied. We'll try not to fall asleep while we wait.

If you want to continue to believe that the earth is square, it's really no sweat off anyone's back. But if you think you can run around like an idiot yelling "poppycock!" and expect anyone with any real expertise in biology to take you seriously, you're delusional.

What's delusional is believing that animals create human beings. :lol: Sorry but reality supports the biblical account of creation perfectly. Each animal breeds its own kind and humans rules over the animals. But since evolutionists don't like reality, they make up their own. :lol:

And by the way, vaccines were discovered by accident, not by trying to make apes breed humans. So evolution had zero to do with the discovery of vaccines. So only when you can make true statements will you be considered credible and not until. :ahem:The degree that scientists go to deny God is beyond bizarre. :lol:

[technomage]

show me over at talk origins how they explain how non-random variation works in their thoery...

Talk.origins is a splendid website and resource, but they are not the be-all and end-all of evolutionary documentation. They're more the "front line," where people send simplistic rebuttals to fundamental errors, such as some of the ones you've made.

However, you can see the Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trait_%28biological%29) for what a trait is. And you can see Science Direct (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VRT-4CNT0D6-C&_coverDate=06%2F22%2F2004&_alid=517494025&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_qd=1&_cdi=6243&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=5b90107c599fc57f2353adfff1119dba) for a discussion of non-random variation--indeed, variation caused by environmental stresses.

(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VRT-4CNT0D6-C&_coverDate=06%2F22%2F2004&_alid=517494025&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_qd=1&_cdi=6243&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=5b90107c599fc57f2353adfff1119dba) How come NONE of the evolutionist books I have talk about nonrandom variation? none.

Probably because it's deucedly difficult to quantify and therefore study.

Are you referring to recombination? explain further, please.

Recombination does not involve the development of new traits. However, retroviral insertion and hybridization are two non-mutation methods by which new traits can occur. You may also want to examine Science Daily's article (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/04/040415012031.htm) on the development of new traits by genetic change.

[Tiggy]

Part of science is disproving competing or alternative theories, which your "science" has never done.
Wow. Of all the mind-bogglingly stupid things you have claimed (and there are many), this one is vying for Top Idiot Prize.

Of course science doesn't have to disprove alternate theories. It's the job of alternate theories to provide their own positive evidence if they want acceptance. Just to show you how stupid your idea is, here's an example:

Charlie Creationist has the theory that the craters on the far side of the moon are filled with tapioca pudding. To CC, it makes perfect sense. CC likes tapioca, CC is made in the image of God, so God must like tapioca too! And what better place to keep it refrigerated that the far side of the moon!

Now tell me supersport - is it NASA's responsibility to spend $100 Million on a lunar lander to look for tapioca pudding, just to disprove CC's theory? To hear CC's side of it:

"Look, science has cursed out Lunar Tapioca-ism for the past 100 years -- instead insisting that the moon is made of rocks and soil. But this is based on nothing but an atheist world-view. If science was truly non-partisan, they'd disprove the Tapioca theory. Instead, they just close their eyes, cover their ears, shout "la la la la la la" and pretend Tapioca pudding doesn't exist. There's nothing at all scientific about lunar rocks and soil...it's never been proven and the alternative has never been disproven, even though doing so would be so incredibly simple."

That's why you sound like such an idiot.

Here's one more, in case you're not convinced. Collections at the church have been lean. The pastor thinks it's because of the Christmas season, and money is tight. But I have an alternate theory that supersport has been stealing from the collection plate. OK supersport, it's up to you to disprove my alternate theory. Get busy - prove to everyone that you didn't steal from the collection plate.

- Tiggy

BTW supersport, that big list of questions you cowardly ran from is still sitting there, waiting.

[Tiggy]

What's delusional is believing that animals create human beings. Sorry but reality supports the biblical account of creation perfectly. Each animal breeds its own kind and humans rules over the animals. But since evolutionists don't like reality, they make up their own.

And by the way, vaccines were discovered by accident, not by trying to make apes breed humans. So evolution had zero to do with the discovery of vaccines. So only when you can make true statements will you be considered credible and not until. The degree that scientists go to deny God is beyond bizarre.

Being familiar with her from another forum--I'll just say you ain't seen the limits of sad.

Well ACOM, you sure called that one right on the money. :ahem:

- T

[Minnesota]

.

[attachment]

.

[Red Wine]

Ok, page 6, and we've seen some fluffy butterflies, with the odd neandertal tip-toeing around. Perhaps we should start the ball rolling with some fossils, their attributes and the extrapolations from this that gives good evidence of a progression from some primate ancestor to us. Maybe start with Dubois and his finds, I don't know.

[Roy]

In the case of the butterflys, beneficial traits are forming without selection. Read this paragraph:

Also, many of the butterflies that emerge during the wet season in the tropics have very large, conspicuous marks on their wings. These markings deflect the attacks of predators while the butterflies are actively finding mates and laying eggs, while the dry-season cohorts are very cryptic, trying to blend in with their environment and not attract any attention from predators until the rains arrive again

So supersport apparently thinks that the colour traits aren't inherited from parents with phenotypic plasticity, but actually arise anew in every butterfly emerging each season.

Roy

[geochron]

Why is it problematic?

Let me explain it: First of all, forget the genes...we're talking traits here -- there is no reason to talk about genes when a whole population emerges a certain way or another according to background or environmental changes.

Darwinists do not admit that traits arise as a result of an environmental change. If traits were to arise non-randomly it would remove the role of creativity from selection -- which is not an option because darwinists do not admit that evolution of beneficial traits can happen without selection. According to evoltuionists, selection -- and only selection -- is the creative force in evolution. To them, selection is the judge -- not the organism because organisms are just dumb entities that don't know what's good for them. Thus, selection is the creative force because it picks from a pool of randomly-arising traits.

In the case of the butterflys, beneficial traits are forming without selection. Read this paragraph:

Also, many of the butterflies that emerge during the wet season in the tropics have very large, conspicuous marks on their wings. These markings deflect the attacks of predators while the butterflies are actively finding mates and laying eggs, while the dry-season cohorts are very cryptic, trying to blend in with their environment and not attract any attention from predators until the rains arrive again

Remember evolutionists' so-called "proof" of selection -- the peppered moths? They supposedly were evidence of selection because the lighter moths purportedly got eaten at a higher rate....which is how the population changed traits. But in this case, the population of butterflies changed without selection: certain marks on the wings formed according to a wet or dry season. This is not how evolution is supposed to work....which is why, in the article they said this:

The authors note that what's not known about wing patterns in butterflies are the genetic mechanisms that result in the great variety of patterns that exist and an understanding of how those mechanisms have evolved through time.

http://unisci.com/stories/20021/0313021.htm

If selection were the culprit here, there would be no reason to exclaim that the genetic mechanisms responsible for these morphological changes are not "known."

That's why there's a problem.

I'm only going on your report, and I'm not a biologist by any stretch of the imagination. Blame the scent of formaldehyde in biology classrooms (retch).

But I don't see the problem. There is a species of butterflies that has one wing colour if it emerges in the wet season and another wing colour if it emerges in the dry season. Why can't this trait arise by random mutation and natural selection? Descendants of butterflies with an alternating strategy will do better than butterflies with a "always wet" or "always dry" strategy, on average.

To amplify, butterflies go through a caterpillar and pupa stage (?). Depending on external factors present at those stages, wing colour changes. This is because of the proteins produced by the genes under different circumstances. The genes that are so influenced by environment convey an advantage on their hosts. I don't see any way that this is impossible.

[supersport]

I'm only going on your report, and I'm not a biologist by any stretch of the imagination. Blame the scent of formaldehyde in biology classrooms (retch).

But I don't see the problem. There is a species of butterflies that has one wing colour if it emerges in the wet season and another wing colour if it emerges in the dry season. Why can't this trait arise by random mutation and natural selection? Descendants of butterflies with an alternating strategy will do better than butterflies with a "always wet" or "always dry" strategy, on average.

To amplify, butterflies go through a caterpillar and pupa stage (?). Depending on external factors present at those stages, wing colour changes. This is because of the proteins produced by the genes under different circumstances. The genes that are so influenced by environment convey an advantage on their hosts. I don't see any way that this is impossible.

Ok..well with that logic, then do you admit Grant's finches emerged with different sized/shaped beaks according to wet or dry season? No true evolutionist would admit this -- yet the concept is the exact same.

The reality is, the article said nothing about selection...it just said the butterflies emerged with different traits to match up with the external environment. I dont remember reading about the mechanism that enbables them to do this. Maybe you can point me to that. Those who did the experiment couldn't offer any suggestions.

And I keep saying this but you guys don't seem to be able to grasp it: heritable traits -- such as beneficial wing patterns -- are to arise randomly. ToE does not allow nonrandom traits to arise...otherwise the whole theory fails. But that's not what's happening. Look at these moths:

http://ourfcs.friendscentral.org/moths/polyphenism1.html

they have the ability to emerge according to different background colors.

[Gaytheist]

Wow. Of all the mind-bogglingly stupid things you have claimed (and there are many), this one is vying for Top Idiot Prize.

Of course science doesn't have to disprove alternate theories. It's the job of alternate theories to provide their own positive evidence if they want acceptance. Just to show you how stupid your idea is, here's an example:

Charlie Creationist has the theory that the craters on the far side of the moon are filled with tapioca pudding. To CC, it makes perfect sense. CC likes tapioca, CC is made in the image of God, so God must like tapioca too! And what better place to keep it refrigerated that the far side of the moon!

Now tell me supersport - is it NASA's responsibility to spend $100 Million on a lunar lander to look for tapioca pudding, just to disprove CC's theory? To hear CC's side of it:

"Look, science has cursed out Lunar Tapioca-ism for the past 100 years -- instead insisting that the moon is made of rocks and soil. But this is based on nothing but an atheist world-view. If science was truly non-partisan, they'd disprove the Tapioca theory. Instead, they just close their eyes, cover their ears, shout "la la la la la la" and pretend Tapioca pudding doesn't exist. There's nothing at all scientific about lunar rocks and soil...it's never been proven and the alternative has never been disproven, even though doing so would be so incredibly simple."

That's why you sound like such an idiot.

Here's one more, in case you're not convinced. Collections at the church have been lean. The pastor thinks it's because of the Christmas season, and money is tight. But I have an alternate theory that supersport has been stealing from the collection plate. OK supersport, it's up to you to disprove my alternate theory. Get busy - prove to everyone that you didn't steal from the collection plate.

- Tiggy

BTW supersport, that big list of questions you cowardly ran from is still sitting there, waiting.
Tiggy: Didn't we have a little talk about not calling supersport an idiot? Or is that someone else I'm thinking of?

[Soundsurfr]

And by the way, vaccines were discovered by accident, not by trying to make apes breed humans. So evolution had zero to do with the discovery of vaccines. So only when you can make true statements will you be considered credible and not until.

LOL. My credibility?? Maybe you can cut and paste where I said that evolution theory had anything to do with the discovery of vaccines, Caricute. :ahem:

The degree that scientists go to deny God is beyond bizarre. :lol:

That statement does not account for the thousands of evotionary biologists who happen to be Christian. You'll have to make up a different scenario for them. :teeth:

[Gaytheist]

What's delusional is believing that animals create human beings. :lol: Sorry but reality supports the biblical account of creation perfectly. By "reality" do you mean "evidence?" If so, what evidence? Each animal breeds its own kind and humans rules over the animals. What is a kind? But since evolutionists don't like reality, they make up their own. :lol: You don't seem yet to have mastered the most elementary concept that there is no such thing as an evolutionist. As I already told you, the people who rely on the theory of evolution are called biologists. Your are slandering thousands of dedicated scientists, without yourself understanding the most basic concepts orf their field. Several people here have advised you to learn something, at least a basic understanding or familiarity, with ToE before trying to attack it, but you seem to prefer to continue to make baseless, uninformed and ill-thought out accusations. The only effect is to undermine your own credibility.

The degree that scientists go to deny God is beyond bizarre. :lol: ToE has no bearing on the existence of God. Millions of Christians accept ToE just fine.

By your lack of response I take it that you are not actually interested in the evidence for the evolution of human beings and apes from a common ancestor? Not surprising, I find that creationists usually are not.

[Gaytheist]

Look, science has cursed out Lamarckism for the past 100 years -- instead insisting on Darwinism. But this is based on nothing but an atheist world-view. If science was truly non-partisan, they'd disprove lamarck's theory. Instead, they just close their eyes, cover their ears, shout "la la la la la la" and pretend lamarckism doesn't exist. There's nothing at all scientific about ToE....it's never been proven and the alternative has never been disproven, even though doing so would be so incredibly simple.

Some "science." I've been curious for some time about the origin of your obsession with a discredited biological hypothesis. Lamarckian evolution is no more or less a/theistic than Darwinian evolution. And it was a perfectly plausible hypothesis, it just turned out to be mistaken. As it happened, Darwin guessed right, and Lamarck guessed wrong. It turned out that the evidence supported Darwinian, not Lamarckian evolution. Had Lamarck been right, the Christians would now be attacking Lamarckian orthodoxy as having been invented for the sole purpose of disproving Genesis.

You have a very odd view of science. Science doesn't get to choose what it finds. Science discovers what is out there. There wasn't a Secret Darwinian Conspiracy to suppress all opposing evidence. That can't be done, because no one controls the evidence. If you, or anyone, could provide solid evidence in support of Lamarckian inheritance, I am confident you would be at least nominated for a Nobel prize. Go for it.

My question is: why do you think Lamarckianism supports Creationism?

As I said, science does not prove things. It finds evidence in support of theories. There is more evidence in support of ToE than would fill a large library. If you would like to review and discuss it, I will review it for you. As I said, I find that presentation of the actual evidence tends to silence creatonists.

[Gaytheist]

What's delusional is believing that animals create human beings. :lol: Sorry but reality supports the biblical account of creation perfectly. Each animal breeds its own kind and humans rules over the animals. But since evolutionists don't like reality, they make up their own. :lol:
within an order of magnitude, how many kinds of bacteria are there? At what point of genetic variation would you consider that they are no longer the same kind? In what way do humans rule over the bacteria?

[Red Wine]

:hi:

[supersport]

Gaytheist: ]I've been curious for some time about the origin of your obsession with a discredited biological hypothesis.

just a quest for the truth.


Lamarckian evolution is no more or less a/theistic than Darwinian evolution.

I don't care.


And it was a perfectly plausible hypothesis, it just turned out to be mistaken.

Actually, it has never been disproven. Prove me wrong. (and don't even drag Weismann's experiments out -- we've already been through that.)



As it happened, Darwin guessed right,

proof???? Controlled scientific experiments on animals? lay it on me.



and Lamarck guessed wrong.

proof? controlled scientific experiments on animals? lay it on me.



It turned out that the evidence supported Darwinian, not Lamarckian evolution.

oh...all these non-controlled tests did this? What do you base this on besides fantasy?



Had Lamarck been right, the Christians would now be attacking Lamarckian orthodoxy as having been invented for the sole purpose of disproving Genesis.

I don't care what Christians would do or say. All I want is to uncover the truth.

You have a very odd view of science. Science doesn't get to choose what it finds. Science discovers what is out there.

why does science avoid disproving the alternative theory?


There wasn't a Secret Darwinian Conspiracy to suppress all opposing evidence.

No comment.

That can't be done, because no one controls the evidence.

You do control the experiments though. You do control which papers get peer reviewed, though. You do write the books and magazine articles and papers though.



If you, or anyone, could provide solid evidence in support of Lamarckian inheritance, I am confident you would be at least nominated for a Nobel prize. Go for it.

I just posted something earlier about butterfies forming new, beneficial traits without selection. I can show you how epigenetics forms new traits without selection. I can show you how Weismann's barrier was broken. I can show you how John Cairns' experiments show that mutations can be adaptive. I would LOVE if science did an experiment to prove/disprove lamarck....but they are CHICKENS!



My question is: why do you think Lamarckianism supports Creationism?

It doesn't. I don't care what it supports. I just want the truth...and I'm not getting it from the atheists in the evolutionary community.

[geochron]

Ok..well with that logic, then do you admit Grant's finches emerged with different sized/shaped beaks according to wet or dry season? No true evolutionist would admit this -- yet the concept is the exact same.



You'll have to tell me more about these finches - I'm not familiar with the evidence.

Regarding the butterflies, though, our cat develops longer fur in the cold and sheds when it gets warm. The trees in our garden lose their leaves when it gets cold. I don't see that there is any significant difference here. It's well known that organisms respond to their environment.



The reality is, the article said nothing about selection...it just said the butterflies emerged with different traits to match up with the external environment. I dont remember reading about the mechanism that enbables them to do this. Maybe you can point me to that. Those who did the experiment couldn't offer any suggestions.

And I keep saying this but you guys don't seem to be able to grasp it: heritable traits -- such as beneficial wing patterns -- are to arise randomly. ToE does not allow nonrandom traits to arise...otherwise the whole theory fails. But that's not what's happening. Look at these moths:

http://ourfcs.friendscentral.org/moths/polyphenism1.html

they have the ability to emerge according to different background colors.

This would appear to have mechanisms, it's linked from your reference.

http://7e.devbio.com/article.php?ch=22&id=212

Different environmental cues prompt the different responses from the organism. There's nothing in the standard theory to say that an organism can't respond to its environment.

You seem to be convinced that "one pattern if it's wet, a different pattern if it's dry" can't be a heritable trait. Why? As far as I can see this is the trait that is inherited, not the specific pattern that is prompted by the environment.

ETA (I notice that the link suggest that the seasonal effect canbe genetically fixed citing Smith 1993. That paper is available online at

http://www.doylegroup.harvard.edu/~carlo/JRL/30/table_30B.html

...but in skimming it I can't find where it makes this assertion.)

[supersport]

geochron: You'll have to tell me more about these finches - I'm not familiar with the evidence.

The finches supposedly went through a dry season and, according to evolutionists, had to go through some sort of selection process in order for the population to change beak sizes. I submit though, that the same mechanism that caused the butterflys to emerge with different colored wing pattern is the same mechanism that caused the finches to emerge with different shaped beaks. Of course since this has never been tested, it will never be confirmed.

Regarding the butterflies, though, our cat develops longer fur in the cold and sheds when it gets warm.

Amen! And what would happen if, when your cat developed longer fur in the cold, if the cold weather never ended? Do you think the fur would get shorter or thinner? I say it wouldn't. That's why I suggested moving some dogs to the Outback in Australia to determine this one way or the other. Evolutionists say that short hair, or white hair, or brown hair, or no hair, or very hairy animals must be SELECTED! I say that's nonsense.


The trees in our garden lose their leaves when it gets cold. I don't see that there is any significant difference here.

Some plants lose their leaves in winter in the northern climates, yet keep them all winter in southern climates. For example, I've got flowers such as lantana and begonias that grow in my beds 9 months out of the year here in north texas -- yet dies back in the winter. If you go down to florida, they grow all year long.


It's well known that organisms respond to their environment.

Yes they do...and I suggest this starts during development and continues throughout the life of the animal. My contention is if the new enviornment sticks around long enough, and if mutations happen in the somatic cells, then these traits would be heritable.


Different environmental cues prompt the different responses from the organism. There's nothing in the standard theory to say that an organism can't respond to its environment.

So then what's stopping the finches or peppered moths from simply "responding to their environment?" Evolutionists say these were examples of selection -- however, as you say, it could just be a matter of "responding". Without a controlled experiment, how can you honestly say if traits are acquired or inherited?


You seem to be convinced that "one pattern if it's wet, a different pattern if it's dry" can't be a heritable trait. Why? As far as I can see this is the trait that is inherited, not the specific pattern that is prompted by the environment.

how would the eggs "know" if it's the wet season or the dry season?

[rmwilliamsjr]

Ok..well with that logic, then do you admit Grant's finches emerged with different sized/shaped beaks according to wet or dry season? No true evolutionist would admit this -- yet the concept is the exact same.


no. the emergent youth beak size did not reflect if a wet or dry season was coming.
their relative percentages in the population were determined by their parents successfully weathering the conditions of the last year and surviving to reproduce.

it just said the butterflies emerged with different traits to match up with the external environment.

no. like alligator sex determination or dozens of other effects before hatching or birth, the embryo is keying onto a function or a physical property that represents a key element of something in the environment. Often temperature, as a good standin for the upcoming environment. It is not reacting to an environment that has not yet occurred but is reacting to and sensing a property of the current environment that has a connection to the upcoming season in some way.

[Tiggy]

Tiggy: Didn't we have a little talk about not calling supersport an idiot? Or is that someone else I'm thinking of?
I didn't call him an idiot this time; I said his stupid unsupported claims make him sound like an idiot. Which they do in spades :wink:

- T

[Tiggy]

I would LOVE if science did an experiment to prove/disprove lamarck....but they are CHICKENS!

Then DO THE EXPERIMENT YOURSELF you lazy whiner, and publish the results. It's YOUR lame-brained idea, YOU pony up the money and time to test it. And if you can't talk any of your Creationist buddies into backing you with $$$$ and time because they've been 'hoodwinked' by the evil atheist scientists, well isn't that just too darn bad. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Now supersport, do you have any evidence that you weren't stealing from the collection plate? Or are you finally wiling to admit it's virtually impossible to prove a negative?

-Tiggy

[TheGreenMan]

You'll have to tell me more about these finches - I'm not familiar with the evidence.
Maybe he means Darwin Finches from the Galapagos Islands?

[Tiggy]

Maybe he means Darwin Finches from the Galapagos Islands?
He's refering to the studies of Galapagos finches done by biologists Peter and Rosemary Grant as described in the 1994 book The Beak of the Finch. Basically, the Grants documented evidence that RM+NS was working much quicker than anyone expected to change the finches' beak morphology. It's a great read, and the author Jonathan Weiner won the Pulitzer Prize for it. Highly recommended.

The Beak of the Finch: A Story of Evolution in Our Time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beak_of_the_Finch)

- Tiggy

[TheGreenMan]

He's refering to the studies of Galapagos finches done by biologists Peter and Rosemary Grant as described in the 1994 book The Beak of the Finch. Basically, the Grants documented evidence that RM+NS was working much quicker than anyone expected to change the finches' beak morphology. It's a great read, and the author Jonathan Weiner won the Pulitzer Prize for it. Highly recommended.

The Beak of the Finch: A Story of Evolution in Our Time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beak_of_the_Finch)

- Tiggy
That study is used as an example in my evolution text book. I'll see about taking a closer look at it.

[Gaytheist]

Gaytheist: ]I've been curious for some time about the origin of your obsession with a discredited biological hypothesis.

supersport]just a quest for the truth. Since there is no evidence to support this hypothesis, on what basis did you decide it was true?

And it was a perfectly plausible hypothesis, it just turned out to be mistaken.

Actually, it has never been disproven. Prove me wrong. (and don't even drag Weismann's experiments out -- we've already been through that.) It's not so much that it's been disproven as that there has not been found any evidence in support of it, despite valiant attempts.

Paul Kammerer was a Viennese biologist whose researches just after the end of the first World War supported the Lamarckian theory of inheritance. This claimed that characteristics acquired by parents during their lives were passed on to their offspring. He used the midwife toad, Alytes obstetricians, as experimental animal in his most conclusive experiments. The results of the midwife toad experiments were subsequently shown to have been faked and Paul Kammerer took his own life in 1926. Kammerer claimed that he was personally innocent of the falsification.
...
In his experiments Kammerer denied access to land to his midwife toads and forced them to mate in water for several generations. He observed that the males eventually developed dark nuptial pads and he claimed that these pads were inherited by their male offspring.

At the time there was lively debate in the scientific literature between proponents of Lamarckism and supporters of Mendelism, with the Mendelian scientists fast gaining ground. Gregor Mendel (1822-1884) had shown that genetic information was carried from one generation to the next via units of heredity we now call genes. He showed that those units, each controlling a bodily characteristic, can independently sort and segregate between generations and that a characteristic can be temporarily hidden in one generation but reappear again in a subsequent generation.

This Mendelian model was incompatible with the plasticity inherent in the Lamarckian model of heritability. The Mendelian scientists strenuously disputed Kammerer's claim and several articles were published in scientific journals supporting one or other side of the argument.

Kammerer's results with the midwife toad were enthusiastically received in the Soviet Union where Lamarckism completely dominated biology under the influence of the geneticist Trofim Denisovich Lysenko (1898-1976). Kammerer was offered a post at the University of Moscow, which he accepted.

In 1926, an American herpetologist (one who studies reptiles and amphibians), GK Noble, came to Vienna and examined a preserved midwife toad from Kammerer's experiments. Noble found that an injection of Indian ink had been used to colour the nuptial pads.

After Noble's exposure of the fraud Kammerer admitted the hoax in a letter to the Soviet Academy of Science in September 1926. He claimed that he had not personally faked the results and that he did not know who was responsible. Shortly afterwards Kammerer killed himself with a pistol shot to the head. He was 46 years old.

As it happened, Darwin guessed right,

proof???? Controlled scientific experiments on animals? lay it on me.



and Lamarck guessed wrong.

proof? controlled scientific experiments on animals? lay it on me. Not proof, remember, this is science. Evidence. Literally tons of it. As I said, if you are really interested, we can go through it. Carico does not seem interested. (I also wonder whether supersport and Carico may be closely related.)

It turned out that the evidence supported Darwinian, not Lamarckian evolution.

oh...all these non-controlled tests did this? What do you base this on besides fantasy? There have been a few lab experiements, and a lot of computer modelling, but mostly it was evidence from the natural world. Do you want to discuss it?

The main reason that Lamarckian inheritance is not accepted is that there is no known mechanism for such inheritance, no way for the trait to get communicated to the offspring, whereas Mendel, and later Crick and Watson, have discovered the mechanism for Mendelian inheritance, which has been demonstrated to exist and work.

You have a very odd view of science. Science doesn't get to choose what it finds. Science discovers what is out there.

why does science avoid disproving the alternative theory? It doesn't, if the alternative theory merits such attention. In the case of Lamarck's hypothesis, no evidence has ever been found to support it. This, combined with the absence of an effective mechanism, is considered sufficient for most scientists to have lost interest in it. If you are interested, I encourage you to pursue this interesting line of research.
...
That can't be done, because no one controls the evidence.

You do control the experiments though. You do control which papers get peer reviewed, though. You do write the books and magazine articles and papers though. I'm afraid you are mistaken. Every scientist is at liberty to perform whatever experiments interest her, to follow valid methods, write up her results and publish them. As long as the methods are legitimate, and do not involve injecting India ink, such research results would be welcome in any biological journal. Such a discovery would be greeted with great fanfare.

A few decades of research in the Soviet Union failed to produce any corroborating evidence, and Lysenkoism has now been abandoned even there.

If you, or anyone, could provide solid evidence in support of Lamarckian inheritance, I am confident you would be at least nominated for a Nobel prize. Go for it.

I just posted something earlier about butterfies forming new, beneficial traits without selection. I can show you how epigenetics forms new traits without selection. I can show you how Weismann's barrier was broken. I can show you how John Cairns' experiments show that mutations can be adaptive. I would LOVE if science did an experiment to prove/disprove lamarck....but they are CHICKENS![/quote] But what you never show is how the acquired trait is inherited, which is the core concept of the Lamarckian hypothesis.

My question is: why do you think Lamarckianism supports Creationism?

It doesn't. I don't care what it supports. I just want the truth...and I'm not getting it from the atheists in the evolutionary community.[/QUOTE] Well then, why do you talk about atheists? What about Christian evolutionary biologists? What does atheism have to do with it?

[wattsr1]

Gaytheist: ]I've been curious for some time about the origin of your obsession with a discredited biological hypothesis.

just a quest for the truth.


Lamarckian evolution is no more or less a/theistic than Darwinian evolution.

I don't care.


And it was a perfectly plausible hypothesis, it just turned out to be mistaken.

Actually, it has never been disproven. Prove me wrong. (and don't even drag Weismann's experiments out -- we've already been through that.)



As it happened, Darwin guessed right,

proof???? Controlled scientific experiments on animals? lay it on me.



and Lamarck guessed wrong.

proof? controlled scientific experiments on animals? lay it on me.



It turned out that the evidence supported Darwinian, not Lamarckian evolution.

oh...all these non-controlled tests did this? What do you base this on besides fantasy?



Had Lamarck been right, the Christians would now be attacking Lamarckian orthodoxy as having been invented for the sole purpose of disproving Genesis.

I don't care what Christians would do or say. All I want is to uncover the truth.

You have a very odd view of science. Science doesn't get to choose what it finds. Science discovers what is out there.

why does science avoid disproving the alternative theory?


There wasn't a Secret Darwinian Conspiracy to suppress all opposing evidence.

No comment.

That can't be done, because no one controls the evidence.

You do control the experiments though. You do control which papers get peer reviewed, though. You do write the books and magazine articles and papers though.



If you, or anyone, could provide solid evidence in support of Lamarckian inheritance, I am confident you would be at least nominated for a Nobel prize. Go for it.

I just posted something earlier about butterfies forming new, beneficial traits without selection. I can show you how epigenetics forms new traits without selection. I can show you how Weismann's barrier was broken. I can show you how John Cairns' experiments show that mutations can be adaptive. I would LOVE if science did an experiment to prove/disprove lamarck....but they are CHICKENS!



My question is: why do you think Lamarckianism supports Creationism?

It doesn't. I don't care what it supports. I just want the truth...and I'm not getting it from the atheists in the evolutionary community.

I would LOVE if science did an experiment to prove/disprove lamarck....but they are CHICKENS!

This simply does not make sense to me. From time to time, I hear of experiments which, so the researchers claim, are best seen in a Lamarckian light. I cannot think of any specifics, nor can I provide any references. But I listen to and read a lot about science. And Lamarck still rears its head within mainstream science every so often.

This is very similar to Richard Goldschmidt’s “Hopeful Monster” theory. His theory was scorned and still is. However, I still see references to his theory within mainstream science journals. Those references are not disparaging.

Many scientific ideas from the past, while scorned by the mainstream, nevertheless are not entirely buried by the mainstream and researchers from within it will sometimes perform research which makes them re-evaluate those ideas.

So in what sense can the scientific community be called "Chicken"? Besides how does one prove/disprove a theory? What experiment or set of experiments can be done to entirely prove one theory (any theory) at the expense of another?

Gaytheist

My question is: why do you think Lamarckianism supports Creationism?

Supersport

It doesn't. I don't care what it supports. I just want the truth...and I'm not getting it from the atheists in the evolutionary community.

So, you would not care if Lamarckianism became mainline ToE?

Out of curiosity, why do you care so much that Darwinism must not be mainline ToE but that Lamarckianism must?

Are the theists within the evolutionary community telling you the truth? If so, then what is this truth they are telling you that the atheists within the evolutionary community are not?

[supersport]

Watts: This simply does not make sense to me. From time to time, I hear of experiments which, so the researchers claim, are best seen in a Lamarckian light. I cannot think of any specifics, nor can I provide any references. But I listen to and read a lot about science. And Lamarck still rears its head within mainstream science every so often.


There may be a few out there, like this one...

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/genetics/dn7185-rogue-weeds-defy-rules-of-genetics.html

but this is the extrememely rare exception....yet there should be tens of THOUSANDS of these types of experiments with all kinds of plants and animals.

Speaking of exceptions, there should be NO exceptions to the darwinian rule. If even one organism shows to inherit characteristics in a lamarckian way then the whole theory of evolution needs to be hurled into the trashcan. And science knows this, which is why they refuse to test it on animals. Please prove me wrong. I'd love to see the link.

This is very similar to Richard Goldschmidt’s “Hopeful Monster” theory. His theory was scorned and still is. However, I still see references to his theory within mainstream science journals. Those references are not disparaging.

I don't know much about the Hopeful monster theory.


So in what sense can the scientific community be called "Chicken"? Besides how does one prove/disprove a theory? What experiment or set of experiments can be done to entirely prove one theory (any theory) at the expense of another?

Any controlled experiment on animals that validates/invalidates lamarckian inheritance would suffice.


So, you would not care if Lamarckianism became mainline ToE?

Not if it was scientifically proven. I don't care....like I say..I'm just looking for the truth. Quite honestly I don't see why one couldn't be an atheist and ackowledge that animals adapt to the environment and/or pass on adaptations to offspring. What's the big deal?

Out of curiosity, why do you care so much that Darwinism must not be mainline ToE but that Lamarckianism must?

For one thing, Darwinism is false...so I don't see the point of propping it up as truth. I not sure everything Lamarck said was correct. He made lots of claims....some of which may not pan out for him....but who would know? He certainly hasn't been scientifically disproven. One thing I'm certain about: The enviornment changes before the phenotype does....also genes are followers, not leaders. Both of these concepts invalidate ToE.

Are the theists within the evolutionary community telling you the truth? If so, then what is this truth they are telling you that the atheists within the evolutionary community are not?

I don't generally learn much from theists....most of the books on evolution I own are written by evolutionists and/or non-creationists. There are a few exceptions. But my goal has never been to prove creation. I could never do that. My goal is simply to dispell the myth of ToE. Besides that, your premise of whether or not I'm "told" the truth is faulty. I believe truth should be demonstrated, not coerced or taught. If truth is not able to be demonstrated scientifically then it is nothing but a philosophy that requires faith.

[wattsr1]

Watts: This simply does not make sense to me. From time to time, I hear of experiments which, so the researchers claim, are best seen in a Lamarckian light. I cannot think of any specifics, nor can I provide any references. But I listen to and read a lot about science. And Lamarck still rears its head within mainstream science every so often.


There may be a few out there, like this one...

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/genetics/dn7185-rogue-weeds-defy-rules-of-genetics.html

but this is the extrememely rare exception....yet there should be tens of THOUSANDS of these types of experiments with all kinds of plants and animals.

Speaking of exceptions, there should be NO exceptions to the darwinian rule. If even one organism shows to inherit characteristics in a lamarckian way then the whole theory of evolution needs to be hurled into the trashcan. And science knows this, which is why they refuse to test it on animals. Please prove me wrong. I'd love to see the link.

This is very similar to Richard Goldschmidt’s “Hopeful Monster” theory. His theory was scorned and still is. However, I still see references to his theory within mainstream science journals. Those references are not disparaging.

I don't know much about the Hopeful monster theory.


So in what sense can the scientific community be called "Chicken"? Besides how does one prove/disprove a theory? What experiment or set of experiments can be done to entirely prove one theory (any theory) at the expense of another?

Any controlled experiment on animals that validates/invalidates lamarckian inheritance would suffice.


So, you would not care if Lamarckianism became mainline ToE?

Not if it was scientifically proven. I don't care....like I say..I'm just looking for the truth. Quite honestly I don't see why one couldn't be an atheist and ackowledge that animals adapt to the environment and/or pass on adaptations to offspring. What's the big deal?

Out of curiosity, why do you care so much that Darwinism must not be mainline ToE but that Lamarckianism must?

For one thing, Darwinism is false...so I don't see the point of propping it up as truth. I not sure everything Lamarck said was correct. He made lots of claims....some of which may not pan out for him....but who would know? He certainly hasn't been scientifically disproven. One thing I'm certain about: The enviornment changes before the phenotype does....also genes are followers, not leaders. Both of these concepts invalidate ToE.

Are the theists within the evolutionary community telling you the truth? If so, then what is this truth they are telling you that the atheists within the evolutionary community are not?

I don't generally learn much from theists....most of the books on evolution I own are written by evolutionists and/or non-creationists. There are a few exceptions. But my goal has never been to prove creation. I could never do that. My goal is simply to dispell the myth of ToE. Besides that, your premise of whether or not I'm "told" the truth is faulty. I believe truth should be demonstrated, not coerced or taught. If truth is not able to be demonstrated scientifically then it is nothing but a philosophy that requires faith.


There may be a few out there, like this one...

http://www.newscientist.com/channel...f-genetics.html

but this is the extrememely rare exception....yet there should be tens of THOUSANDS of these types of experiments with all kinds of plants and animals.

Speaking of exceptions, there should be NO exceptions to the darwinian rule. If even one organism shows to inherit characteristics in a lamarckian way then the whole theory of evolution needs to be hurled into the trashcan. And science knows this, which is why they refuse to test it on animals. Please prove me wrong. I'd love to see the link.

What is the “Darwinian rule” your link is supposed to be an exception to?

If this research holds up, then why does it mean that the whole theory must be thrown into the trash can?

What is the “it” that scientists refuse to test on animals?

Roland

So in what sense can the scientific community be called "Chicken"? Besides how does one prove/disprove a theory? What experiment or set of experiments can be done to entirely prove one theory (any theory) at the expense of another?

Supersport

Any controlled experiment on animals that validates/invalidates lamarckian inheritance would suffice.

Well yes, a controlled experiment that validated Lamarck would probably invalidate Darwin. I gather that most experiments done to date convince most (but not all) that Darwin invalidates Lamarck, not the other way around.

So why does this mean that the scientific community is “chicken”. Clearly it disagrees with you, therefore it is chicken? How does that follow?

You disagree with it, therefore you are “chicken” – does that makes sense or is there something wrong with my logic?

Not if it was scientifically proven. I don't care....like I say..I'm just looking for the truth. Quite honestly I don't see why one couldn't be an atheist and ackowledge that animals adapt to the environment and/or pass on adaptations to offspring. What's the big deal?

????

Dunno? If Lamarck was demonstrated to be correct at the expense of Darwin, then I would accept Lamarck’s explanation. So I do not know why you ask – “what’s the big deal” in that context.

For one thing, Darwinism is false...so I don't see the point of propping it up as truth. I not sure everything Lamarck said was correct. He made lots of claims....some of which may not pan out for him....but who would know? He certainly hasn't been scientifically disproven.

Maybe Darwin is incorrect. However, his ideas seem to be doing pretty well so far. Perhaps Lamark really was correct. However, his ideas were more or less abandoned a long time ago.

Proof/disproof hardly come into this. If you are happy that “some of [Lamarck’s] ideas may pan out for him” then I puzzle at your hatred of Darwin. Quite obviously some of his ideas did pan out for him.

One thing I'm certain about: The enviornment changes before the phenotype does....also genes are followers, not leaders. Both of these concepts invalidate ToE.

Well I guess, even in a classical Darwinian sense, the environment has to change before it can become a selector of genes. But then the genes which will be selected, will already have changed.

Do you have any experimental evidence that the environment feeds back into the genome to cause the genes to change?

Roland

Are the theists within the evolutionary community telling you the truth? If so, then what is this truth they are telling you that the atheists within the evolutionary community are not?

Supersport

I don't generally learn much from theists....most of the books on evolution I own are written by evolutionists and/or non-creationists. There are a few exceptions. But my goal has never been to prove creation. I could never do that. My goal is simply to dispell the myth of ToE. Besides that, your premise of whether or not I'm "told" the truth is faulty. I believe truth should be demonstrated, not coerced or taught. If truth is not able to be demonstrated scientifically then it is nothing but a philosophy that requires faith.

Your answer to my question can only make sense if you are telling me that all evolutionists were and are atheists and that evolution can only ever be an atheistic theory.

Is that what you are saying?

[Carico]

By "reality" do you mean "evidence?" If so, what evidence? What is a kind? You don't seem yet to have mastered the most elementary concept that there is no such thing as an evolutionist. As I already told you, the people who rely on the theory of evolution are called biologists. Your are slandering thousands of dedicated scientists, without yourself understanding the most basic concepts orf their field. Several people here have advised you to learn something, at least a basic understanding or familiarity, with ToE before trying to attack it, but you seem to prefer to continue to make baseless, uninformed and ill-thought out accusations. The only effect is to undermine your own credibility.

ToE has no bearing on the existence of God. Millions of Christians accept ToE just fine.

By your lack of response I take it that you are not actually interested in the evidence for the evolution of human beings and apes from a common ancestor? Not surprising, I find that creationists usually are not.

If scientists have to ask what a Kind is than they really don't understand the birds and the bees! :lol: So let me give you a hint; a Kind is a species. And a species is "a classification of living organisms consisting of individuals with similar traits capable of exchanging genes and interbreeding."

But even children don't have to have that defined for them. They know that dogs don't breed chickens and pigs don't breed horses, elephants don't breed zebras, etc. But since many scientists don't know what each species breeds then of course they don't know what a kind is nor that apes don't breed human desecndants. So they have to be educated by children. :lol:

[FreezBee]

My question is: why do you think Lamarckianism supports Creationism?

It doesn't. I don't care what it supports. I just want the truth...and I'm not getting it from the atheists in the evolutionary community.

Just for the record: Lamarck was a creationist. Most evolutionists at his time were creationists.

More precisely: Lamarck accepted that there was a number of originally created kinds, but that evolution was possible within a kind.

The break that Charles Darwin did with most other evolutionists was not to suggest evolution, but to claim that there really are no kinds - all current species can have one common ancestor.

This was based on the assumption that any trait of a species can be changed, and that therefore there really are no species, except as a convention. The same argument applies if kind is mapped to another taxonomic level than species.

So the Darwinism-Lamarckianism distinction isn't all that decisive between evolution and creationism. Creationists generally accept some evolution, but limited to be within kinds - that is: no common ancestor.


- FreezBee

[Carico]

Since the whole purpose of the theory of evolution was to deny God, then it's not hard to see how the theory was formed. if God didn't create humans and animals, then how were they created? The answer is a foregone conclusion: They must have come from each other. :lol:

So to deny God, scientists have tried to fit a square peg into a round hole by claiming that one animal came from another animal which is not only absolutely contrary to how reality works, but it goes beyond the bizarre. It leads to:

1) Claiming that animals can breed human descendants
2) Humans are animals
3) The environment turns one animal into another. :lol:
4) Human descendants will eventually turn into a new species :lol:
5) Humans once had tails :lol:
6) One day humans might have wings :lol:
7) Changing the history of the Jews
8) Making up new tribes of primates and or humans

The above surpasses science fiction because it's considered "science" and therefore falls into the category of mythology. And yet scientists laugh at ancient people for being superstitious! :lol:

Sorry guys, but ancient people thought they had just as much evidence for their claims as the scientists of today think. Only the scientists of today, have less excuse because they should know how animals and humans breed!

Nevertheless, in their desperation to deny God, any irrational claim will do. All one has to do is have a Ph.d. and others who can't think for themselves say; "Yeah, yeah, I'll believe anyting you say...uh-huh, uh-huh." And that's why scientists can get people to believe that animals can turn into humans. :lol:

[Lili]

:brood:

[Ishmael]

I need a time machine to get my 15 seconds back.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Since the whole purpose of the theory of evolution was to deny God,Well... this post falls by the wayside quickly.
... then it's not hard to see how the theory was formed. if God didn't create humans and animals, then how were they created? The answer is a foregone conclusion: They must have come from each other. :lol:Naw... man is made of clay, like the good book says. How else can you explain how flexible we are.

[Carico]

Well... this post falls by the wayside quickly.
Naw... man is made of clay, like the good book says. How else can you explain how flexible we are.

I'll respond the way evolutionists do: You're wrong and I'm right. The OP doesn't fall by the wayside. There, I've proven my OP...that is, according to the reasoning of evolutionists. :lol:

[geochron]

Since the whole purpose of the theory of evolution was to deny God, then it's not hard to see how the theory was formed. if God didn't create humans and animals, then how were they created? The answer is a foregone conclusion: They must have come from each other.


Obviously not. They could have come from, say, mud.



I'll respond the way evolutionists do: You're wrong and I'm right. The OP doesn't fall by the wayside. There, I've proven my OP...that is, according to the reasoning of evolutionists.



In this, as in so much else, you have not understood the reasoning of "evolutionists".

[Jorge]

Since the whole purpose of the theory of evolution was to deny God, then it's not hard to see how the theory was formed. if God didn't create humans and animals, then how were they created? The answer is a foregone conclusion: They must have come from each other. :lol:

So to deny God, scientists have tried to fit a square peg into a round hole by claiming that one animal came from another animal which is not only absolutely contrary to how reality works, but it goes beyond the bizarre. It leads to:

1) Claiming that animals can breed human descendants
2) Humans are animals
3) The environment turns one animal into another. :lol:
4) Human descendants will eventually turn into a new species :lol:
5) Humans once had tails :lol:
6) One day humans might have wings :lol:
7) Changing the history of the Jews
8) Making up new tribes of primates and or humans

The above surpasses science fiction because it's considered "science" and therefore falls into the category of mythology. And yet scientists laugh at ancient people for being superstitious! :lol:

Sorry guys, but ancient people thought they had just as much evidence for their claims as the scientists of today think. Only the scientists of today, have less excuse because they should know how animals and humans breed!

Nevertheless, in their desperation to deny God, any irrational claim will do. All one has to do is have a Ph.d. and others who can't think for themselves say; "Yeah, yeah, I'll believe anyting you say...uh-huh, uh-huh." And that's why scientists can get people to believe that animals can turn into humans. :lol:
The 'flavor' of your OP is absolutely correct, while not necessarily all of the specifics. For instance, it is NOT true that "the whole purpose of the theory of evolution was to deny God". (my emphasis)

Some would say that NO PART of the ToE was to deny God - that would also not be true. Richard Dawkins, Atheist extraordinaire, said it clearly and with no punches pulled, "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled Atheist".

Before these people had a 'viable' ToE, they could believe that all species evolved from some primordial goo, but they had no way of explaining how such a thing could happen. Charlie gave them this 'how'. Thus, the ToE is an essential part of denying God - it provides the alternative, albeit a stooooopid one. :lol:

Since then, the ToE is the ONLY way to account for life without a Creator. That's why they cling and defend the ToE with the fire and passion of a fanatical, drugged Snake Worshipper - they have to!

Jorge

[Cyrus Johnson]

Since the whole purpose of the theory of evolution was to deny God, then it's not hard to see how the theory was formed.

That's it...you found us out. The black helicopters will be over your house in 3...2..1.

if God didn't create humans and animals, then how were they created? The answer is a foregone conclusion: They must have come from each other.[/blockquote]

I think you're onto something here.

[quote]So to deny God, scientists have tried to fit a square peg into a round hole by claiming that one animal came from another animal which is not only absolutely contrary to how reality works, but it goes beyond the bizarre.

What an absurd idea...that animals can give birth to animals, that the offspring might be different from the parents, that these differences might lead to differing reproductive success, and that they may pass these differences onto their own offspring. That could never happen in nature.

1) Claiming that animals can breed human descendants
2) Humans are animals

Well...they are. Biology teaches us that, whether or not you accept evolution.

3) The environment turns one animal into another.

The environment indeed has an effect.

4) Human descendants will eventually turn into a new species

Maybe.

5) Humans once had tails

To be more accurate (not that accuracy appears to be high on your list) human ancestors had tails. And occasionally, even modern humans have tails. Most of us just have a vestige of a tail.

6) One day humans might have wings

You mean like angels?

7) Changing the history of the Jews

Huh?

8) Making up new tribes of primates and or humans

Humans are already primates.

The above surpasses science fiction because it's considered "science" and therefore falls into the category of mythology. And yet scientists laugh at ancient people for being superstitious!

Actually its understandable ancient people were superstitious in this regard. Modern people however, have less excuse.

Sorry guys, but ancient people thought they had just as much evidence for their claims as the scientists of today think. Only the scientists of today, have less excuse because they should know how animals and humans breed!

How do you know that? We do know how animals breed...that's exactly the problem for you. This knowledge only provides more proof of evolution, no matter how much you bravely try to casually dismiss it.

Nevertheless, in their desperation to deny God, any irrational claim will do.

Tell that to the theists (including many Christians) who accept evolution.

All one has to do is have a Ph.d. and others who can't think for themselves say; "Yeah, yeah, I'll believe anyting you say...uh-huh, uh-huh." And that's why scientists can get people to believe that animals can turn into humans.

You forgot about the evidence. Sadly, that points 180° from where you're looking.

[Gaytheist]

If scientists have to ask what a Kind is than they really don't understand the birds and the bees! :lol: So let me give you a hint; a Kind is a species. And a species is "a classification of living organisms consisting of individuals with similar traits capable of exchanging genes and interbreeding." You are the first creationist who has ever tried to answer this question for me. I'm still guessing that you are a young and inexperienced creationist, as your proferred definition has serious problems for you.

Scientists have no clue what creationists mean when they say "kind", since they have never offered a coherent or consistent definition. Biologists do know what a species is, but "kind" is not a scientific term and has no scientific definition.

"Q: How many original created kinds were there?
FRAIR: Let's say 10,000 plus or minus a few thousand.
Q: Some creationists believe kinds to be synonymous with species, some with genera, some with family, and some with order, don't they?
FRAIR: The scientists with whom I am working . . . well . . . it tends more towards the family. But it may go to order in some cases.
Q: You have been studying turtles for many years, haven't you?
FRAIR: Yes.
Q: Is a turtle an originally created kind?
FRAIR: I'm working on that. Wayne Frair, McLean v. Arkansas trial, 1981.

If two organisms breed, even though it is infrequent, they are of the same kind; if they don't breed but are clearly of the same morphological type, they are of the same kind, by the logic of the axiom which states two things equal to the same thing are equal to each other. R.L. Wysong, The Creation-Evolution Controversy

It is obvious, for example, that among the invertebrates the protozoa, sponges, jellyfish, worms, snails, trilobites, lobsters and bees are all different kinds. Among the vertebrates, the fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals are obviously different basic kinds. Among the reptiles, the turtles, crocodiles, dinosaurs, pterosaurs (flying reptiles), and icthyosaurs (aquatic reptiles) would be placed in different kinds. Each one of these major groups of reptiles could be further subdivided into the basic kinds within each. Within the mammalian class, duckbilled platypuses, opposums, bats, hedgehogs, rats, rabbits, dogs, cats, lemurs, monkeys, apes and men are easily assignable to different basic kinds. Among the apes, the gibbons, orangutans, chimpanzees and gorillas would each be included in a different basic kind. Duane Gish, Evolution? The Fossils Say NO! p.35

One should not insist that "kind" means species. The word "kind" as used in the Bible may apply to any animal which may be distinguished in any way from another, or it may be applied to a large group of species distinguishable from another group ... there is plenty of room for differences of opinion on what are the kinds of Genesis. Creation and Evolution (Monograph 2; Wheaton, Ill.: (London: J. Clarke, 1931)

While the Bible allows that new varieties may have arisen since the creative days, it denies that any new species have arisen. Byron Nelson, After Its Kind

According to the model, living creatures were not created individually, but in groups known as a "kind". Creatures in a kind were created with a set of characteristics and a potentiality for a limited range of variation. A species (the taxonomic term used by biologists and paleontologists) is NOT synonymous with a kind. Some kinds will include many species as well as higher order taxa, while other kinds (such as humankind) may only include one species. Creation Science FAQ ]a creationist site (http://www.clubs.psu.edu/up/origins/faqsci.htm#What%20are%20kinds [creation science FAQ)

We now understand the kind to be a group of organisms who share a genetic relationship through common descent from an organism originally created by God during the Creation Week. [creationwiki]

In baraminology the primary term is holobaramin from the Greek holos for whole. The holobaramin is all and only those known living and/or extinct forms of life understood to share genetic relationship. It is an entire group believed to be related by common ancestry. (A “holobaramin” is a creationist term equivalent to “kind.”)

Another holobaramin could consist of the sea turtles (see Wise, 1992; Robinson, 1997). christiananswers.net

[there are 7 living species of sea turtle.]

The baramin [kind] is a set of organisms containing fewer than all organisms and almost if not always more than just a single species. Kurt Wise, Baraminology

Creationists understand that the classification category of species is not the same as the Genesis kind. Species is a man-made classification that is generally defined as an interbreeding unit that is reproductively isolated from other units. Michael Oard, Answers in Genesis

A baramin could be defined as the descendants of a single created population. So each baramin has its beginning at the creation, and unless extinct, continues to exist today in its descendants. After the creation, each baramin population grew and subdivided as it spread over the earth. The processes of recombination and natural selection in new environments in many instances caused the members of the same baramin to divide into separate races and species. Lane P. Lester, Ph.D,The History of Life
Creation Research Society Quarterly 31(2) 1994

Not infrequently the creationistic biologist is asked, "In our present system of classification of plants and animals is there any category which is an equivalent of the Genesis kind or created unit?" The answer to this question seems to be "No." At the time of creation the kinds of basic types were each created after a distinguishing pattern in form and structure, and they were able to produce other individuals like themselves. As we look into nature today we find that man, Homo sapiens, can cross with no other animal. So in his case the species is the created unit. In other instances we find that the dog, Canis familiaris, will cross with the gray wolf, Canis nubilis, and the horse, Equus caballus, will cross with the ass, Equus asinus. Here the genus is the created unit. Again the common goat, genus Capra, will cross with the common sheep, genus Ovis to the extent of producing fetuses which will live until just before the time for birth. A more successful generic hybrid is the case Of the genus Bibos which will cross with the Brahma cow, genus Bos, making the family the created unit. (See Mammalian Hybrids, 1954, by Annie F. Gray, published by Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Farnham Royal, Bucks, England.) Yet again the domestic hen, family Phasionidae, has been crossed with the turkey, family Meleagrididae. Thus the order becomes the created unit... [so we see a kind can be anything from a species up to an order, in Linnean classification.] If we accept the ability to hybridize as the principal characteristic of the groups within the Genesis kind, we apparently have no single category in our presentday taxonomic system which is equivalent to the Genesis kind. Frank L. Marsh, The Genesis Kinds in Our Modern World

So we see for creationists other than Carico, a kind most definitely does not mean a species, and means something about either being descended from a common ancestor, being able to breed or at least hybridize, or looking very similar. Of course these 3 factors are not in reality identical, to say the least, as there are species that look identical but cannot interbreed.

However, Carico says a kind is a species.
Carico, are you a YEC who believe in the Noachian Flood? There are currently over a million known species of animals, and many times that many that are now extinct, including thousands of dinosaurs alone. Within an order of magnitude, about how many kinds did Noah bring on the ark?

Did you know that speciation has been observed in the laboratory? That is, scientists have actually observed new species of organisms breed from old species. These are mostly fast breeding organisms, fruit flies or even bacteria. For this reason, most creationists admit that new species can evolve from old ones; they just say that species aren't kinds, and this is merely micro-evolution. Carico, however, says these scientists are wrong, and this simply doesn't happen.

But even children don't have to have that defined for them. They know that dogs don't breed chickens and pigs don't breed horses, elephants don't breed zebras, etc. But since many scientists don't know what each species breeds then of course they don't know what a kind is nor that apes don't breed human desecndants. So they have to be educated by children. :lol: This is good, since ToE does not assert that this has ever or could ever happen. Are you familiar at all with what ToE actually does say?

[TheGreenMan]

If scientists have to ask what a Kind is than they really don't understand the birds and the bees! :lol: So let me give you a hint; a Kind is a species. And a species is "a classification of living organisms consisting of individuals with similar traits capable of exchanging genes and interbreeding."

But even children don't have to have that defined for them. They know that dogs don't breed chickens and pigs don't breed horses, elephants don't breed zebras, etc. But since many scientists don't know what each species breeds then of course they don't know what a kind is nor that apes don't breed human desecndants. So they have to be educated by children. :lol:
Hey every one, we finally have an exact definition of 'Kind'!

A kind is the same thing as a species.

We have been told over and over again that one 'kind' can not become another 'kind'. In fact Carico, above restates that by saying pigs don't breed horses. But those are two distantly related 'kinds', let's look at two 'kinds' that are more closely related. Which we can do, now that we have a definition of 'kind' that says 'kind' = species.

Lets take the butterfly species Heliconius melpomene, Heliconius cydno, and Heliconius heurippa. Unlike Carico's examples these are all from the same genus, namely Heliconius.

Now these are all different 'kinds', since 'kind' = species.

But wait it has been show experimentally that H. melpomene and H. cydno can interbreed (hybridize) to create the species H. heurippa. And H. heurippa can mate with other H. heurippa and produce little H. heurippa babies. (I.e. the species is viable.)

So either
1. 'kind' does not = species or
2. the definition of 'kind' needs to be changed so one 'kind' can produce another 'kind' or
3. A 'kind' is basically nonsense.


The thread on butterfly speciation which I used above can be found here: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=81221&highlight=butterfly

[TheGreenMan]

:brood:
My reaction was more: :lol:

[Roy]

Since the whole purpose of the theory of evolution was to deny God, ...

No, it wasn't.

Roy

[Minnesota]

And let's not forget the coywolf

[attachment=1] [attachment=2] [attachment=3] [attachment=4] [attachment=5]

[Gaytheist]

Carico: Seriously, how old are you? Do you have a high school diploma?

[Ishmael]

Ligers are huge.
http://www.tigers-animal-actors.com/about/liger/ligerstand.JPG

[Minnesota]

Unfortunately, male ligers are sterile so ligers cannot reproduce among themselves.

[Minnesota]

There, I've proven my OP...that is, according to the reasoning of evolutionists.
Hey! I think I hear your mother calling you.

[Jorge]

Carico: Seriously, how old are you? Do you have a high school diploma?
It never EVER fails : dare question the Sacred Moo-Cow (a.k.a. the ToE) and as if by magic the person is transformed into a "scientific ignoramus that probably doesn't even have a high school diploma".

Don't feel bad at all, Carico. This even happens to PhD scientists with tenure and many published peer-reviewed papers. What I mean is, as soon as they question The Cow they overnight become "pseudo-scentists". As one of many that know of this, just ask Michael Behe. Therefore, faint not - you stand in plenty of good company. :smile:

Jorge

[Minnesota]

It never EVER fails : dare question the Sacred Moo-Cow (a.k.a. the ToE) and as if by magic the person is transformed into a "scientific ignoramus that probably doesn't even have a high school diploma".
C'mon. None of us, not even you, believe there is any transformation. Carico came to us that way.

[Gaytheist]

It never EVER fails : dare question the Sacred Moo-Cow (a.k.a. the ToE) and as if by magic the person is transformed into a "scientific ignoramus that probably doesn't even have a high school diploma".

Don't feel bad at all, Carico. This even happens to PhD scientists with tenure and many published peer-reviewed papers. What I mean is, as soon as they question The Cow they overnight become "pseudo-scentists". As one of many that know of this, just ask Michael Behe. Therefore, faint not - you stand in plenty of good company. :smile:

Jorge
Yes, that's it. It's not because the OP demonstrates an utter ignorance of any scientific information whatsoever, a gross misunderstanding of what the theory of evolution is or says, or the proper subject matter of science itself, it's because it had the temerity to question the party line of the great atheist conspiracy. Don't worry, though, Carico, you're in good company--with Jorge and Michael "astrology can be science" Behe. :rofl:

Seriously, Carico, I was just wondering how old you are, and what your educational background is.

[Dr.GH]

Since the whole purpose of the theory of evolution was to deny God, then it's not hard to see how the theory was formed. if God didn't create humans and animals, then how were they created? The answer is a foregone conclusion: They must have come from each other.
For a first observation, "you don't put a chip on you shoulder unless you want to fight." The denial of this god or that god was going along quite well without any idea about the origins of species or even of life itself. Darwin was very hesitant about publishing his work because of the probable consequences to the faiths of some Christians. When his theory was independently discovered by Wallace, Darwin was forced to publish.

But decades earlier than this 1859 milestone, the biblical tradition that species were immutable, and had all shared a unique and recent origin/creation had been abandonded. Efforts to understand and account for this had gone on for nearly a century before the "Origin of Species" was published.

If you want anyone to take you at all seriously you will need to learn some basics about science generally, and in this case biology. I will make a book recommendation that I hope you will take advantage of, because it will at least help you to avoid seeming so foolish.

Burnie, David
1999 "Get a Grip on Evolution" London: The Ivy Press

It is written for people with a high school reading level, so I am sure that it is within your ability.

[Carico]

Yes, that's it. It's not because the OP demonstrates an utter ignorance of any scientific information whatsoever, a gross misunderstanding of what the theory of evolution is or says, or the proper subject matter of science itself, it's because it had the temerity to question the party line of the great atheist conspiracy. Don't worry, though, Carico, you're in good company--with Jorge and Michael "astrology can be science" Behe. :rofl:

Seriously, Carico, I was just wondering how old you are, and what your educational background is.

Sorry but a statement is either true or it's not regardless if the person who said it has a Ph.d. or not. Bot those who have no clue what the truth is, don't understand that. So they believe anything someone with a Ph.d says. And that's precisely how scientists can convince millions of people that apes breed human beings. So they've got you guys in the palm of their hands.

So...please explain how an animal can breed a human descendant. :lol: It appears that I know alot more about the reproductive process than you do since you have no clue why that's impossible. :wink:

[rogue06]

Since the whole purpose of the theory of evolution was to deny God, then it's not hard to see how the theory was formed... So to deny God, scientists have tried to fit a square peg into a round hole by claiming that one animal came from another animal which is not only absolutely contrary to how reality works, but it goes beyond the bizarre... Nevertheless, in their desperation to deny God, any irrational claim will do. All one has to do is have a Ph.d. and others who can't think for themselves say; "Yeah, yeah, I'll believe anyting you say...uh-huh, uh-huh." And that's why scientists can get people to believe that animals can turn into humans. :lol:


If I get the gist of Carico's OP he is basically giving a version of how evolution is actually Satanic plot. What's next, fossils were "planted" in the Earth by the devil to fool gulible geologists? :rofl:

[Carico]

If I get the gist of Carico's OP he is basically giving a version of how evolution is actually Satanic plot. What's next, fossils were "planted" in the Earth by the devil to fool gulible geologists? :rofl:


Actually it's as mythologoligcal as the Greek god, Pan, who was half-man half goat. :lol: But 19th & 20th century men at least make half-man half-ape a little more pallatable, but not much. :lol:

[supersport]

Sorry but a statement is either true or it's not regardless if the person who said it has a Ph.d. or not. Bot those who have no clue what the truth is, don't understand that. So they believe anything someone with a Ph.d says. And that's precisely how scientists can convince millions of people that apes breed human beings. So they've got you guys in the palm of their hands.

So...please explain how an animal can breed a human descendant. :lol: It appears that I know alot more about the reproductive process than you do since you have no clue why that's impossible. :wink:

....

[supersport]

If I get the gist of Carico's OP he is basically giving a version of how evolution is actually Satanic plot. What's next, fossils were "planted" in the Earth by the devil to fool gulible geologists? :rofl:

Care to point me to any of these fossils that prove ToE?

[Gaytheist]

Sorry but a statement is either true or it's not regardless if the person who said it has a Ph.d. or not. Bot those who have no clue what the truth is, don't understand that. So they believe anything someone with a Ph.d says. And that's precisely how scientists can convince millions of people that apes breed human beings. So they've got you guys in the palm of their hands.

So...please explain how an animal can breed a human descendant. :lol: It appears that I know alot more about the reproductive process than you do since you have no clue why that's impossible. :wink:

As I said in a different thread, if you would like to review the basic evidence that supports the ToE, I will go through it with you. All I ask is that you do follow along and try to understand and engage with it.

To begin, do you think you understand what ToE actually says and doesn't say? Because your posts seem to indicate that you do not.

[Carico]

As I said in a different thread, if you would like to review the basic evidence that supports the ToE, I will go through it with you. All I ask is that you do follow along and try to understand and engage with it.

To begin, do you think you understand what ToE actually says and doesn't say? Because your posts seem to indicate that you do not.

Sorry, but i've studied evolution probably a lot longer than you've lived and it's just as much of a fairy tale is the notion that half-men half-beast once lived. :lol: But since it was thought of around the time of Jules Verne then I can see why it's been accepted by "mad scientists". :wink:

[Carico]

You are the first creationist who has ever tried to answer this question for me. I'm still guessing that you are a young and inexperienced creationist, as your proferred definition has serious problems for you.

Scientists have no clue what creationists mean when they say "kind", since they have never offered a coherent or consistent definition. Biologists do know what a species is, but "kind" is not a scientific term and has no scientific definition.

Wayne Frair, McLean v. Arkansas trial, 1981.

R.L. Wysong, The Creation-Evolution Controversy

Duane Gish, Evolution? The Fossils Say NO! p.35

Creation and Evolution (Monograph 2; Wheaton, Ill.: (London: J. Clarke, 1931)

Byron Nelson, After Its Kind

Creation Science FAQ ]a creationist site (http://www.clubs.psu.edu/up/origins/faqsci.htm#What%20are%20kinds [creation science FAQ)

[creationwiki]

christiananswers.net

[there are 7 living species of sea turtle.]

Kurt Wise, Baraminology

Michael Oard, Answers in Genesis

Lane P. Lester, Ph.D,The History of Life
Creation Research Society Quarterly 31(2) 1994

Frank L. Marsh, The Genesis Kinds in Our Modern World

So we see for creationists other than Carico, a kind most definitely does not mean a species, and means something about either being descended from a common ancestor, being able to breed or at least hybridize, or looking very similar. Of course these 3 factors are not in reality identical, to say the least, as there are species that look identical but cannot interbreed.

However, Carico says a kind is a species.
Carico, are you a YEC who believe in the Noachian Flood? There are currently over a million known species of animals, and many times that many that are now extinct, including thousands of dinosaurs alone. Within an order of magnitude, about how many kinds did Noah bring on the ark?

Did you know that speciation has been observed in the laboratory? That is, scientists have actually observed new species of organisms breed from old species. These are mostly fast breeding organisms, fruit flies or even bacteria. For this reason, most creationists admit that new species can evolve from old ones; they just say that species aren't kinds, and this is merely micro-evolution. Carico, however, says these scientists are wrong, and this simply doesn't happen.

This is good, since ToE does not assert that this has ever or could ever happen. Are you familiar at all with what ToE actually does say?

Sorry but I got that definition from the "Oxford American Dictionary and Thesaurus." :wink:

:lol: Sorry but scientists change their minds every decade about their findings. So the one constant in science is; "We now know that what we once thought was true is not true." So not only are scientists wrong, they admit they're wrong. And since scientists all disagree with each other, then your claim that it doesn't happen that scientists are wrong is false. They are not omniscient. :ahem:

[Minnesota]

Sorry, but i've studied evolution probably a lot longer than you've lived and it's just as much of a fairy tale is the notion that half-men half-beast once lived.
But reading a Jack Chick tract [attachment] over and over and over and over and over and over and over. . . . . . . . . . . . .yawn . . . . . . . . . . . .and over and over and over and over doesn't really count as studying evolution.

[Carico]

The only reason that anybody thinks that apes can breed human descendants is because their faith is in anyone with a Ph.d.

Never mind that scientists change their minds about everything from what causes cancer to how the first living cell came into existence and that today's science changes yesterday's science. So the question then becomes which scientists do you believe: today's scientists, or tomorrow's scientists who correct today's scientists? Or future scientists who correct tomorrow's scientists? :wink:

[wattsr1]

The only reason that anybody thinks that apes can breed human descendants is because their faith is in anyone with a Ph.d.

Never mind that scientists change their minds about everything from what causes cancer to how the first living cell came into existence and that today's science changes yesterday's science. So the question then becomes which scientists do you believe: today's scientists, or tomorrow's scientists who correct today's scientists? Or future scientists who correct tomorrow's scientists? :wink:

Let us just take one thing for now Carico. Demonstrate that scientists change their minds about what causes cancer. (In another thread you used the term "every decade".)

So let me see you demonstrate that this is so.



Edited to add

Here it is, from your "Newsflash thread":-

Carico:- "Sorry but scientists change their minds every decade about their findings."

[Minnesota]

So the question then becomes which scientists do you believe: today's scientists, or tomorrow's scientists who correct today's scientists? Or future scientists who correct tomorrow's scientists?
Those who don't base their conclusions on mythology or wishful thinking.

[Tladatsi]

The only reason that anybody thinks that apes can breed human descendants is because their faith is in anyone with a Ph.d.

No, there is the little matter of the fossil evidence, mitochondrial and nuclear DNA patterns, and general physiological similarities. Faith has nothing to do with.

Never mind that scientists change their minds about everything from what causes cancer to how the first living cell came into existence and that today's science changes yesterday's science. So the question then becomes which scientists do you believe: today's scientists, or tomorrow's scientists who correct today's scientists? Or future scientists who correct tomorrow's scientists? :wink:

Yes that is how science works, as new evidence comes in, people modify their theories. It is a really great system, it works. It is how small pox was wiped out across the world, why the average age of a citizen of the US is 78 today when it was 48 100 years ago (thanks to antibiotics and the drinking water treatment).

However it is merely modifications, rarely complete rejection. Relativity modified Newtonians physics (i.e. at speeds near the speed of light [special theory] or intense acceleration [general relativity]) it did not contradict it. Genetic theory did not over turn Darwinism, it modified it. It is the details that change, not the fundementals, and certainly not the method.

[wattsr1]

No, there is the little matter of the fossil evidence, mitochondrial and nuclear DNA patterns, and general physiological similarities. Faith has nothing to do with.



Yes that is how science works, as new evidence comes in, people modify their theories. It is a really great system, it works. It is how small pox was wiped out across the world, why the average age of a citizen of the US is 78 today when it was 48 100 years ago (thanks to antibiotics and the drinking water treatment).

However it is merely modifications, rarely complete rejection. Relativity modified Newtonians physics (i.e. at speeds near the speed of light [special theory] or intense acceleration [general relativity]) it did not contradict it. Genetic theory did not over turn Darwinism, it modified it. It is the details that change, not the fundementals, and certainly not the method.

It's kind of funny, isn't it.

Carico asserted that scientists change their minds about the cause of cancer.

Carico can either demonstrate this by profering evidence and good argument, or we can take Carico's assertion on faith.

I reckon Carico wishes us to take that assertion on faith. Therefore, perhaps Carico’s thread starter is Carico projecting?

[seer]

Those who don't base their conclusions on mythology or wishful thinking.

And you base your conclusions on what?

[JonF]

Sorry but I got that definition from the "Oxford American Dictionary and Thesaurus."
So, how many kinds did Noah have on his ark? All of them?

[Stabbytheclown]

Sorry but I got that definition from the "Oxford American Dictionary and Thesaurus." :wink:

Is that an appeal to authority? In any case, the dictionary is not wrong: it does not say it is impossible for two separate species to interbreed. Horses and donkeys can produce mules. You said species and kind were synonymous.



:lol: Sorry but scientists change their minds every decade about their findings. So the one constant in science is; "We now know that what we once thought was true is not true." So not only are scientists wrong, they admit they're wrong. And since scientists all disagree with each other, then your claim that it doesn't happen that scientists are wrong is false. They are not omniscient. :ahem:

Right. Science improves. Your dumb beliefs stay wrong forever.

[grmorton]

The only reason that anybody thinks that apes can breed human descendants is because their faith is in anyone with a Ph.d.

Never mind that scientists change their minds about everything from what causes cancer to how the first living cell came into existence and that today's science changes yesterday's science. So the question then becomes which scientists do you believe: today's scientists, or tomorrow's scientists who correct today's scientists? Or future scientists who correct tomorrow's scientists? :wink:


Who is dumber, the people who, seeing data that contradicts their beliefs and don't change their minds in spite of the evidence, and the people who, seing data that contradicts their beliefs do change their minds and act accordingly?


When a person, standing on railroad tracks, sees a train coming their way, but refuses to change their mind about standing on the tracks, merely gets run over.

Mind changing is better. Refusal to change one's mind leads to YEC

[Jake]

The only reason that anybody thinks that apes can breed human descendants is because their faith is in anyone with a Ph.d.

Never mind that scientists change their minds about everything from what causes cancer to how the first living cell came into existence and that today's science changes yesterday's science. So the question then becomes which scientists do you believe: today's scientists, or tomorrow's scientists who correct today's scientists? Or future scientists who correct tomorrow's scientists? :wink:

How do you begin to correct ignorance like this? I could begin by telling you that humans are apes, as well as being primates, mammals, chordates and animals, but I suspect that would just confuse you. I could mention something about the self correcting nature of science, and how this enables us to converge upon an answer, getting closer to the truth with time, but I suspect you have given up reading this paragraph by now.

You are making an utter fool of yourself. Go and read some introductory material on the nature of science and the scientific method, and then follow this up with some basic evolutionary biology. Until you know the first thing about what you are talking about you are just wasting everybodies time.

[seer]

Who is dumber, the people who, seeing data that contradicts their beliefs and don't change their minds in spite of the evidence, and the people who, seing data that contradicts their beliefs do change their minds and act accordingly?


That's the point. What evidence? Things as we understand them now? Based on what? Our flawed reasoning informed by a "few" facts? So Carico rests on a literal view of scripture over and against the constant flux of scientific theory - and that is bad why?

[aniso]

That's the point. What evidence?
You may deny the evidence all you want, but that is all you have: denial.

Things as we understand them now?
So, you want things as we understood them a thousand years ago? Sorry, I'll go with 'NOW'.

Based on what?
The evidence that you deny.

Our flawed reasoning ...
HOw is it flawed?

... informed by a "few" facts?
A few facts??? Again, your denial does not change the evidence.

So Carico rests on a literal view of scripture over and against the constant flux of scientific theory - and that is bad why?
Who says it is bad? It is just wrong. We are saying her interpretation of the bible is inaccurate.

[seer]

So, you want things as we understood them a thousand years ago? Sorry, I'll go with 'NOW'.


That is the point Homer - how do you know what we will believe a thousand years from now? How many new facts will overthrow the sacred cows of todays science... We are ignorant, groping in darkness.

[robto]

The only reason that anybody thinks that apes can breed human descendants is because their faith is in anyone with a Ph.d.

Never mind that scientists change their minds about everything from what causes cancer to how the first living cell came into existence and that today's science changes yesterday's science. So the question then becomes which scientists do you believe: today's scientists, or tomorrow's scientists who correct today's scientists? Or future scientists who correct tomorrow's scientists? :wink:

The only reason that anybody belives in the Bible is because of their faith in some guy in a pulpit.

Never mind that theologians change their minds about everything from whether slavery is acceptable, to what happens to the wine in the Eucharist, to how Jesus's death was able to save people, so that today's theology changes yesterday's theology. So the question then becomes which theologians do you believe: today's theologians, or tomorrow's theologians who will correct today's theologians? :wink:

[Carico]

Let us just take one thing for now Carico. Demonstrate that scientists change their minds about what causes cancer. (In another thread you used the term "every decade".)

So let me see you demonstrate that this is so.



Edited to add

Here it is, from your "Newsflash thread":-

Carico:- "Sorry but scientists change their minds every decade about their findings."

Cancer has been linked to everything from charcoal to cell phones. Then scientists come out and say that the cancer threat from these isn't as great as they once thought. All one has to do is look at the science books every decade to see what's different in them. :wink:

[Carico]

The only reason that anybody belives in the Bible is because of their faith in some guy in a pulpit.

Never mind that theologians change their minds about everything from whether slavery is acceptable, to what happens to the wine in the Eucharist, to how Jesus's death was able to save people, so that today's theology changes yesterday's theology. So the question then becomes which theologians do you believe: today's theologians, or tomorrow's theologians who will correct today's theologians? :wink:

Sorry but reality bears out the biblical account of creation perfectly. Each species breeds its own kind and humans rule over the animals. The sun gives light by day, and the moon & stars give light by night and are used to mark the days, months and years.

So we Christians don't have to contradict reality like evolutionists do to keep their beliefs. In fact, they have to invent reality, a new history of the Jews, and pre-history to do it. :lol: So since there's no evidence that apes can breed human beings in reality, then it absolutely takes more faith to be a scientists than a Christian. :wink:

[Barry Desborough]

Cancer has been linked to everything from charcoal to cell phones. Then scientists come out and say that the cancer threat from these isn't as great as they once thought. All one has to do is look at the science books every decade to see what's different in them. :wink:

You don't give your age in your profile, so I don't know what your cancer risks are from just that one factor, but there is a good chance that one day, sooner or later, your very life will depend on cancer research, research which is informed by genetic and evolutionary science.

[aniso]

That is the point Homer -
Cute. Is that the best you've got?

...how do you know what we will believe a thousand years from now?
News Flash: it isn't a thousand years from now! Now is now, and a thousand years from now, it will still be now.

How many new facts will overthrow the sacred cows of todays science... We are ignorant, groping in darkness.
And it was even worse when YEC was the latest in science. And what about 2000 years from now? Sorry, Seer, we have to go with what we've got. I can't tell my client, "Well, a thousand years from now, we'll know the answer to your question."

[Tladatsi]

Cancer has been linked to everything from charcoal to cell phones. Then scientists come out and say that the cancer threat from these isn't as great as they once thought. All one has to do is look at the science books every decade to see what's different in them. :wink:

No you are quite mistaken.

Only one thing causes cancer,uncontrolled growth of somatic cells. This is occationally the result of hereditary factors. Far more commonly it is caused by damage to the nuclear DNA (not mitochondrial DNA) which results in a base-pair substitution. If the DNA is duplicated before the DNA is repaird, then the base-pair substitution become permanent. If the base-pair substitution in an active gene that reguates cell growth and reproduction, uncontrolled cell growth will occur.

Many, agents have been called proposed carcinogens because they are thought to cause DNA damage (initators) or stimulate cell growth DNA reproduction (promoters). Many agents have been callled possible (IARC Group 2b) and other probable (IARC Group 2a) carcingens but only a relatively small number are known human carcinogens (IARC Group 1) These include X-rays, benzene, some water insoluble salts of chromium(IV), cigarette smoke, arflotoxins, Chrysotile [a type of asbestos], and ethylene oxide (there are about 50). Alcohol is not an intiator but is a promoter, espeically for liver cancers.

All of these agents cause damage to the DNA. Scientists have know this for decades, they are argue about whether they can cause DNA damage or the actually do. For example, dichloromethane (CH2Cl2) was thought to be a carcinogen because it was that that one of the chlorine atoms could be removed a carbo-cation is form formed (CH2Cl+) which can attack the electron rich DNA molecules. However, it was recently discovered that the liver metabolizes CH2Cl2 by the cytochrome 245 enzyme to phosgene (COCl2), which, while toxic, is not electrophillic and thus not carcinogenic. Of course if the cytochrome 245 enzymes are saturated, an alternative metabolic route may produce carbo-cations. Thus, while CH2Cl2 could cause cancer based on stucture activity relationships, it does not appear to based on the latest toxicological studies.

Or did you not want to discuss carcinogenesis?

Short answer, scientists know how cancer is caused. They are still learning what causes cancers. I am happy to report that those silly, experimenting, mind changing scientists have found many ways to cure cancer that did not exist just a few years ago. Survival rates are improving for all forms of cancer.

Sounds good to me. What have you got that is better?

[supersport]

Short answer, scientists know how cancer is caused.

No they don't....or at least they won't admit it. Cancer is a degenerative disease caused by a lifetime of sugar, salt, meat, gasoline fumes, pollution, drugs, smoking, beer, etc.

Cancer is the result of cellular malfunction...and this malfunction has a cause. until science admits that this malfunction happens non-randomly they will never get close to curing it. Curing cancer starts with regenerating the cells in the body.

[Barry Desborough]

Short answer, scientists know how cancer is caused.

No they don't....or at least they won't admit it. Cancer is a degenerative disease caused by a lifetime of sugar, salt, meat, gasoline fumes, pollution, drugs, smoking, beer, etc.

Cancer is the result of cellular malfunction...and this malfunction has a cause. until science admits that this malfunction happens non-randomly they will never get close to curing it. Curing cancer starts with regenerating the cells in the body.

Incredible!

Now put your hand on your heart and tell me you read and took in post #17.

[Carico]

No you are quite mistaken.

Only one thing causes cancer,uncontrolled growth of somatic cells. This is occationally the result of hereditary factors. Far more commonly it is caused by damage to the nuclear DNA (not mitochondrial DNA) which results in a base-pair substitution. If the DNA is duplicated before the DNA is repaird, then the base-pair substitution become permanent. If the base-pair substitution in an active gene that reguates cell growth and reproduction, uncontrolled cell growth will occur.

Many, agents have been called proposed carcinogens because they are thought to cause DNA damage (initators) or stimulate cell growth DNA reproduction (promoters). Many agents have been callled possible (IARC Group 2b) and other probable (IARC Group 2a) carcingens but only a relatively small number are known human carcinogens (IARC Group 1) These include X-rays, benzene, some water insoluble salts of chromium(IV), cigarette smoke, arflotoxins, Chrysotile [a type of asbestos], and ethylene oxide (there are about 50). Alcohol is not an intiator but is a promoter, espeically for liver cancers.

All of these agents cause damage to the DNA. Scientists have know this for decades, they are argue about whether they can cause DNA damage or the actually do. For example, dichloromethane (CH2Cl2) was thought to be a carcinogen because it was that that one of the chlorine atoms could be removed a carbo-cation is form formed (CH2Cl+) which can attack the electron rich DNA molecules. However, it was recently discovered that the liver metabolizes CH2Cl2 by the cytochrome 245 enzyme to phosgene (COCl2), which, while toxic, is not electrophillic and thus not carcinogenic. Of course if the cytochrome 245 enzymes are saturated, an alternative metabolic route may produce carbo-cations. Thus, while CH2Cl2 could cause cancer based on stucture activity relationships, it does not appear to based on the latest toxicological studies.

Or did you not want to discuss carcinogenesis?

Short answer, scientists know how cancer is caused. They are still learning what causes cancers. I am happy to report that those silly, experimenting, mind changing scientists have found many ways to cure cancer that did not exist just a few years ago. Survival rates are improving for all forms of cancer.

Sounds good to me. What have you got that is better?

So does the above happen in regard to animals turning into humans? If not, then it doesn't apply. :wink:

[Carico]

If evolution is true, then there had to be a first modern-day human. So why have they never passed along their accounts of their ape-like parents and ancestors? :eh: One would think that the transition from an ape to a human would have been a monumental event, particularly since it hasn't happened since. So why no accounts of our vine-swinging ancestors anywhere in history? :huh: We should have great stories by ancient peoples of wars with clubs between people who couldn't speak. So where are they? :shrug:

[Minnesota]

No they don't....or at least they won't admit it. Cancer is a degenerative disease caused by a lifetime of sugar, salt, meat, gasoline fumes, pollution, drugs, smoking, beer, etc.

Okay, so let's go back in time to before there were gasoline fumes, pollution, drugs, smoking, beer, etc. and the only carcinogens were sugar, salt, and meat. Sugar occurs as a natural product of nature. Salt is a natural product of nature. And meat is a natural product of nature. Now who gave these natural carcinogens to man? Yup, the Big Guy. Nice guy.


"Here's life, and here's how I'm going to make you suffer for it."

Yours truely

[attachment]

[Dr.GH]

You are still confussed. The transition from our last common ancestor (LCA) shared with todays surviving apes was neither an event that happened suddenly, nor the result of a massive change from one species to another.

We currently know of around a half dozen species that were intermediate at least in time between our LCA-chimp and today. There are even more for the LCA with the other great apes. There is also some interesting genetic data that indicates that our ancient ancestors and their more chimp-like cousins were able to interbreed for quite a long while. I suppose this should not be too surprising given how closely related we still are.

This brings up the Neandertal and sapiens interfertility question. Our early human ancestors and the Neadertals lived in fairly close proximity for nearly 10,000 years. Reconstructed Neandertal mitochondrial DNA shows next to no similarity with ours, but new reports about Y chromosome DNA shows some possible interbreeding. Sexlinked hybreds are known for other mammals and this could be the answer.

[Minnesota]

If evolution is true, then there had to be a first modern-day human. So why have they never passed along their accounts of their ape-like parents and ancestors?
because they spent all their time looking for a teacher to show them how to write.

One would think that the transition from an ape to a human would have been a monumental event, particularly since it hasn't happened since.

Yeah. Sort of a

[attachment]

kind of thing.

[wattsr1]

Cancer has been linked to everything from charcoal to cell phones. Then scientists come out and say that the cancer threat from these isn't as great as they once thought. All one has to do is look at the science books every decade to see what's different in them. :wink:
I would have thought that “cell phones cause cancer” is still an issue under investigation. Obviously you believe that science once claimed this issue to have been solved. Can you provide evidence that science had claimed this issue to have been solved and but has now changed its mind on whether cell phones cause cancer or not?

Charcoal? Science once claimed this causes cancer. Now science claims it does not? Do you have evidence for this – or am I to take you on faith?

I think scientists do have some good ideas as to what causes cancer. I think they have had these ideas for decades. You don't? What do you think causes cancer - or do you have absolutely no idea? :smile:

[Tladatsi]

So does the above happen in regard to animals turning into humans? If not, then it doesn't apply. :wink:

Gee, let's see, some silly fellow posted the below to show that that scientists cannot be trusted and don't know what they are doing since they are always changing their minds about stuff, like the causes of cancer. If they were constantly changing their minds about something like cancer, they could not possibly know what they are talking about in regards to evolution.

Cancer has been linked to everything from charcoal to cell phones. Then scientists come out and say that the cancer threat from these isn't as great as they once thought. All one has to do is look at the science books every decade to see what's different in them.

I responded to this posting by pointing scientists generally do have a consistent and effective theory of carcinogenesis but they change and modify it as new research comes forward. These are changes in details, not fundamentals. So using the logic of this particular poster, since scientists do understand the basics* of carcinogensis, they must also be qualified to understand evolution.

So wink away there smiley face, I did link the issues of cancer and evolution (although there is really interesting article in Scientific American on the evolution of cancer).

*Which is not to say they know every detail, there is lots to be learned.

[HiddenOne]

The only reason that anybody thinks that apes can breed human descendants is because their faith is in anyone with a Ph.d.

Never mind that scientists change their minds about everything from what causes cancer to how the first living cell came into existence and that today's science changes yesterday's science. So the question then becomes which scientists do you believe: today's scientists, or tomorrow's scientists who correct today's scientists? Or future scientists who correct tomorrow's scientists? :wink:


Scientists don't 'believe' much of anything if the truth be told. We are about testing the ideas of others and critically evaluating any data presented to us. Good ideas, like evolution, last because they withstand all the tests and all the criticisms we can muster. A Ph.D. is not a license to believe uncritically, but an award for working hard and learning to criticize everything. It's quite obvious you don't have a Ph.D.

[Gaytheist]

Sorry but I got that definition from the "Oxford American Dictionary and Thesaurus." :wink: So, as I was saying, what is YOUR definition of a kind?

[Gaytheist]

Sorry, but i've studied evolution probably a lot longer than you've lived and it's just as much of a fairy tale is the notion that half-men half-beast once lived. :lol: But since it was thought of around the time of Jules Verne then I can see why it's been accepted by "mad scientists". :wink:
1. Just as I thought. I find that few creationists show much interest in the evidence. Yet they do not hesitate to mischaracterize it.
2. I doubt it, since you obviously do not understand the most basic foundations of what it says and doesn't say. You have just destroyed the remotest shred of credibilty that you might still possibly have had in this forum.
3. If you do not want to review the evidence, and are not really interested in it, please stop asking for it. Just accept what the consensus of biologists conclude from that evidence. If you want to attack it, the onus is actually on you to present any evidence to controvert it.
4. One of your problems, Carico, is that the people who disagree with you on this forum know much more than you do about both biology and creationism. btw, out of curiousity, are you YEC, OEC, ID, PC, or something else?
5. :rofl: You made my day! I'm an old crone, Carico. Thanks.
6. So you're not a youngster then? Do you have a high school diploma?

[JonF]

Sorry, but i've studied evolution probably a lot longer than you've lived
I always find it amazing that Carico and such people think they can feign expertise when every phrase they write screams ignorance.

[HiddenOne]

Don't feel bad at all, Carico. This even happens to PhD scientists with tenure and many published peer-reviewed papers. What I mean is, as soon as they question The Cow they overnight become "pseudo-scentists". As one of many that know of this, just ask Michael Behe.
Jorge

Behe is not a pseudoscientist. He is an average scientist with a slightly below average publication rate (given his experience). His scientific papers are not the most outstanding or numerous but it seems he plugged away at doing real science for long enough. Then he discovered he could make money and a name for himself (something that he was unable to do with his science) by turning to intelligent design. I would say that Behe is a politician, not a pseudoscientist. We'll have to wait and see if he is a better politician than scientist or if 'Darwin's Black Box" shot Behe's political wad.

[Tladatsi]

Scientists don't 'believe' much of anything if the truth be told. We are about testing the ideas of others and critically evaluating any data presented to us. Good ideas, like evolution, last because they withstand all the tests and all the criticisms we can muster. A Ph.D. is not a license to believe uncritically, but an award for working hard and learning to criticize everything. It's quite obvious you don't have a Ph.D.

I dare say real scientists would never expect anyone to believe what they say just because they say so. Scientists expect critical evaluation of what they say.

What scientists do have though is a track record. They invented things like antibiotics which save millions of lives. Drinking water treatment (filtration and disinfection) has saved tens of millions lives. They sent rockets to the moon, airplanes through the air, and even PCs and the internet.

That sort of record does inspire a certain amount respect, if not faith.

[Mark Little]

The only reason that anybody thinks that apes can breed human descendants is because their faith is in anyone with a Ph.d.

Never mind that scientists change their minds about everything from what causes cancer to how the first living cell came into existence and that today's science changes yesterday's science. So the question then becomes which scientists do you believe: today's scientists, or tomorrow's scientists who correct today's scientists? Or future scientists who correct tomorrow's scientists? :wink:What you are speaking about is the result of seeking new knowledge and then using it.

You seem to saying that this is a bad thing. If so, is this just limited to science, or have you not learnt anything new about life or your religion throughout your life?

If it isn't just limited to science, have you learnt nothing new because you knew everything from inception and there is nothing else to learn and incorporate, or is it that you are incapable/unwilling to learn?

[rogue06]

Actually it's as mythologoligcal as the Greek god, Pan, who was half-man half goat. :lol: But 19th & 20th century men at least make half-man half-ape a little more pallatable, but not much.:lol:


Carico, you're really starting to scare me now.

[Gaytheist]

Each animal breeds its own kind

What is a kind?

If scientists have to ask what a Kind is than they really don't understand the birds and the bees! So let me give you a hint; a Kind is a species. And a species is "a classification of living organisms consisting of individuals with similar traits capable of exchanging genes and interbreeding."

But even children don't have to have that defined for them. They know that dogs don't breed chickens and pigs don't breed horses, elephants don't breed zebras, etc. But since many scientists don't know what each species breeds then of course they don't know what a kind is nor that apes don't breed human desecndants. So they have to be educated by children.

<snip long post from GT illustrating that according to most creationists, a kind is NOT a species, and pointing out a couple of the problems with asserting that it is.

Sorry but I got that definition from the "Oxford American Dictionary and Thesaurus."

So, as I was saying, what is YOUR definition of a kind?

So, since you assert that anyone who doesn't know what a "kind" is doesn't understand the birds and the bees, and needs to be educated by children, I'm sure you can now tell us what a "kind" is, since you also tell us that each animal breeds its own kind? If you don't know what a "kind" is, how do you know whether each animal breeds it or not?

[aniso]

1. Just as I thought. I find that few creationists show much interest in the evidence. Yet they do not hesitate to mischaracterize it.
2. I doubt it, since you obviously do not understand the most basic foundations of what it says and doesn't say. You have just destroyed the remotest shred of credibilty that you might still possibly have had in this forum.
3. If you do not want to review the evidence, and are not really interested in it, please stop asking for it. Just accept what the consensus of biologists conclude from that evidence. If you want to attack it, the onus is actually on you to present any evidence to controvert it.
4. One of your problems, Carico, is that the people who disagree with you on this forum know much more than you do about both biology and creationism. btw, out of curiousity, are you YEC, OEC, ID, PC, or something else?
5. :rofl: You made my day! I'm an old crone, Carico. Thanks.
6. So you're not a youngster then? Do you have a high school diploma?
Ask Carico about dinosaurs. Then rogue can be reeeeeely scared.

[Dr.GH]

Behe started in creationist polemic in the mid-to-late 1980s but kept this quiet until the early 1990s.

[Roy]

Unfortunately, male ligers are sterile so ligers cannot reproduce among themselves.

Isn't male ligers redundant?

Roy

[Minnesota]

Isn't male ligers redundant?

No. Why would you think so?

[robto]

If evolution is true, then there had to be a first modern-day human. So why have they never passed along their accounts of their ape-like parents and ancestors? :eh: One would think that the transition from an ape to a human would have been a monumental event, particularly since it hasn't happened since. So why no accounts of our vine-swinging ancestors anywhere in history? :huh: We should have great stories by ancient peoples of wars with clubs between people who couldn't speak. So where are they? :shrug:

If you can write the above then you are obviously completely clueless about what the theory of evolution says. It's not clear to me why you would attempt to attack a theory about which you know nothing, but if you don't want to continue making a fool of yourself, you might try learning a little about the theory before making any further comments on it.

[neocon_voter]

You are still confussed. The transition from our last common ancestor (LCA) shared with todays surviving apes was neither an event that happened suddenly, nor the result of a massive change from one species to another.

We currently know of around a half dozen species that were intermediate at least in time between our LCA-chimp and today.
.

What are these species and how do you know?

Neocon_Voter

[Tickle Me Mercury]

Since the whole purpose of the theory of evolution was to deny God <snip>

I think you pretty much lost everyone at hello with this one, tiger.

Are you really incapable of seeing the distinction between forming a theory for the purpose of denying God and forming a theory about speciation that contradicts some portions of religious history (not theology) with which some people (including some scientists) use to explain life as it is observed outside of pressupositions about a divine creator?

Have you noticed that a few people with whom you are debating this topic have little gold crosses next to their name, indicating that a belief in evolution as a mechanism for the diversity of life does not necessarily indicate that one subscribing to the ToE must necessarily be doing so to deny God?


But who are we kidding. really? You're just trolling, and I'm just bored. Have yourself a little blasty blast until the mods decide to hit you with the ban stick.

[Dr.GH]

Don't trust me. Learn this on your own time.

Here is a place to start on your study of extinct primates. (http://members.tripod.com/cacajao/evolution.html)

These are some places to start on your study of human evolution;

Becoming Human (http://www.becominghuman.org/)

The Human Origins Program at the Smithsonian Institution (http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/index.htm)

It is even better to take some good courses at schools with serious paleoanthropology programs, University of Arizona, University of California- Berkeley are two that come to mind.

[neocon_voter]

Don't trust me. Learn this on your own time.

Here is a place to start on your study of extinct primates. (http://members.tripod.com/cacajao/evolution.html)

These are some places to start on your study of human evolution;

Becoming Human (http://www.becominghuman.org/)

The Human Origins Program at the Smithsonian Institution (http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/index.htm)

It is even better to take some good courses at schools with serious paleoanthropology programs, University of Arizona, University of California- Berkeley are two that come to mind.

Most of your links deal with paleoanthropological (fossil) evidence. I wouldn't rely on fossil evidence because of the deep time involved; there's no way to tell if those animals are from populations ancestral to H.sapiens or if they are 'non-linear' 'side-branches' . The paleoanthropologists themselves admit they don't really know if their fossils are from a species that is ancestral to H.sapiens. I explained that a few months ago (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1473428&postcount=36):
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1473428&postcount=36

Also, (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1472598&postcount=24) in the same thread, I offered what I had learned, that in such deep time, you can't really tell which fossil is descendant/ancestral to the other, even taking into consideration the stratum they were discovered:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1472598&postcount=24

Neocon_Voter

[Dr.GH]

I see. No chemistry, no physics, no geology and no biology evidence is alowed.

In that case there is no further discussion.

[kristov]

I see. No chemistry, no physics, no geology and no biology evidence is alowed.

Pretty much sums up religion too hey?

[Gaytheist]

carico:
The nice people here at TWeb keep telling you this, but you keep ignoring their offer of help. We are trying to help you become a more effective proponent of creationism, because right now every time you post you are actually harming your case. The main reason is that you are demonstrating over and over again that you do not actually know what the Theory of Evolution (ToE) says. I'm willing to teach you, and I'm guessing that others here will help. This will help make you a better advocate for Creationism. After all, if you don't know what ToE is, how can you argue against it? On the other hand, since it is a valid, robust, amply confirmed theory, that >99% of biologists accept and use in their work, there is also a risk that you too will come to accept it. What do you say?

[FreezBee]

carico:
The nice people here at TWeb keep telling you this, but you keep ignoring their offer of help. We are trying to help you become a more effective proponent of creationism, because right now every time you post you are actually harming your case. The main reason is that you are demonstrating over and over again that you do not actually know what the Theory of Evolution (ToE) says. I'm willing to teach you, and I'm guessing that others here will help. This will help make you a better advocate for Creationism. After all, if you don't know what ToE is, how can you argue against it? On the other hand, since it is a valid, robust, amply confirmed theory, that >99% of biologists accept and use in their work, there is also a risk that you too will come to accept it. What do you say?

:lol: Gaytheist, remember that Carico is a creationist, so you should have used ... tags, otherwise I am afraid it doesn't work.

- FreezBee

[Gaytheist]

:lol: Gaytheist, remember that Carico is a creationist, so you should have used ... tags, otherwise I am afraid it doesn't work.

- FreezBee
Maybe I need to use [nonirony] tags. I'm dead serious. Obviously carico doesn't have clue one. I am perfectly willing to explain ToE to him or her, with or without supporting evidence. Either it will help him or her better argue against ToE, or persuade him or her that it is in fact correct. If he or she decides to take me up on the offer, I hope that my friends here will help me; I'm sure it will be educational to many. There are many creationists out there who know very little about ToE. Also we can all learn from each other and have a better understanding.

To me, the theory itself, as well as the supporting evidence, is so persuasive, that I think any open-minded, intelligent person would be persuaded by it, which is why all of biology is predicated on it, and virtually all biologists accept it. That's why I am warning carico that if you learn the truth, you may change your mind.

[Gaytheist]

Hmm, an offer to explain the theory, and review the evidence in its favor, is met with silence. What might this mean?

[Roy]

No. Why would you think so?

Because I was confused.

I am no longer confused.

Roy

[Roy]

:bump:

Many many dinosaurs have been dated at less than 15,000 years old.

Cite three.

Roy

[Gaytheist]

carico:
The nice people here at TWeb keep telling you this, but you keep ignoring their offer of help. We are trying to help you become a more effective proponent of creationism, because right now every time you post you are actually harming your case. The main reason is that you are demonstrating over and over again that you do not actually know what the Theory of Evolution (ToE) says. I'm willing to teach you, and I'm guessing that others here will help. This will help make you a better advocate for Creationism. After all, if you don't know what ToE is, how can you argue against it? On the other hand, since it is a valid, robust, amply confirmed theory, that >99% of biologists accept and use in their work, there is also a risk that you too will come to accept it. What do you say?
Should there be any lurkers in this thread, I wish to draw your attention to this interchange. Carico came in here with guns drawn and mouth open, blasting away at a non-existent theory of evolution. I offered to explain the actual theory, warning him or her that this might cause him/her to believe it. S/he immediately disappeared into the night. What does this tell you about:
--the theory of evolution
--creationism
--the evidence
--my confidence in the ToE
--Carico's confidence in creationism
--the appropriate level of confidence vs. skepticism we should place in loud, vodiferous claims of creationists?

[Sparko]

Guys, I am a YEC myself so please believe me when I say this...

Nobody can be as clueless as Carico seems to be about evolution. He is just trolling.

[Dr.GH]

Guys, I am a YEC myself so please believe me when I say this...

Nobody can be as clueless as Carico seems to be about evolution. He is just trolling.
Then why drop the pole when you have a "fish on?"

[Gaytheist]

Then why drop the pole when you have a "fish on?" Some days you're the angler, and some days you're the fish.

[Gaytheist]

So is this all us evil atheist evolutionists need to do to vanquish a creationist, offer to explaint the theory of evolution and describe the evidence in support? Wow, maybe that's why they don't want it taught in schools, if all you have to do to convince people is explain it...?

[Sparko]

heck he is probably an evolutionist pretending to be a YEC just to give us a bad name.

[Dr.GH]

heck he is probably an evolutionist pretending to be a YEC just to give us a bad name.
I don't think so. If he wanted to embarass creationists, his best was to come and post over and over. He could have accepted the invitation and then trotted out all the classic YEC PRATTs, like SLoT, like "no new information,' or "no intermediate fossils." There are hundreds of them that could be obilterated one after another.

[Carico]

Why haven't apes or primates given birth to homonids since the beginning to recorded history? Afterall, if they did it once, why wouldn't they do it again? :wink: Maybe because there have been witnesses since the beginning of recorded history so apes don't want to be observed mutating into humans. Or maybe they're just plain tired of giving birth to new species. :lol: Or maybe one or 2 apes bred a different species and their offspring also produced a different species while the rest of the apes remained the same. What do you think? :huh:

[Gaytheist]

Why haven't apes or primates given birth to homonids since the beginning to recorded history? Afterall, if they did it once, why wouldn't they do it again? :wink: Maybe because there have been witnesses since the beginning of recorded history so apes don't want to be observed mutating into humans. Or maybe they're just plain tired of giving birth to new species. :lol: Or maybe one or 2 apes bred a different species and their offspring also produced a different species while the rest of the apes remained the same. What do you think? :huh:
You don't want to know what I really think.
Newsflash: Every hominid ever born was born to an ape because (wait for it)....hominids are apes!
Do you know anything at all about the theory of evolution?

[rogue06]

Why haven't apes or primates given birth to homonids since the beginning to recorded history? Afterall, if they did it once, why wouldn't they do it again? :wink: Maybe because there have been witnesses since the beginning of recorded history so apes don't want to be observed mutating into humans. Or maybe they're just plain tired of giving birth to new species. :lol: Or maybe one or 2 apes bred a different species and their offspring also produced a different species while the rest of the apes remained the same. What do you think? :huh:


Ah, yes. A varient of the old "if humans came from monkeys, why are they still monkeys around?" I didn't know that YECs still use that argument! :lol: :lmbo: :lol:

[supersport]

Why haven't apes or primates given birth to homonids since the beginning to recorded history? Afterall, if they did it once, why wouldn't they do it again? :wink: Maybe because there have been witnesses since the beginning of recorded history so apes don't want to be observed mutating into humans. Or maybe they're just plain tired of giving birth to new species. :lol: Or maybe one or 2 apes bred a different species and their offspring also produced a different species while the rest of the apes remained the same. What do you think? :huh:

Yea I'm still waiting for lizard to morph into a mammal or a fish into a lizard too.

Evolutionists "proof" always happens somewhere else -- anywhere regular people can't see it happen. It happens over behind a hill....on the other side of the world, in unfound common ancestor bones, back in deep time, under the microscope etc etc.

[rogue06]

Sensing an impending load of B.S. coming this way, I'll say this now. Hey super! Why don't you get on with your C-14 tests as you claimed you would after calling anyoe who wouldn't a "C-O-W-A-R-D" in your Dinosaurs: Scientific Propaganda machines (www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=90362)? Oh wait! Now you refuse :lmbo:


Oops, I see I'm a few minutes late

[Gaytheist]

Yea I'm still waiting for lizard to morph into a mammal or a fish into a lizard too. Why? It's not something that the theory of evolution predicts would happen.

Evolutionists "proof" always happens somewhere else -- anywhere regular people can't see it happen. It happens over behind a hill....on the other side of the world, in unfound common ancestor bones, back in deep time, under the microscope etc etc. "under a micrscope" is somewhere else? Why, you can't look through a microscope? How about in a museum? There's quite a lot of evidence in any good museum of natural science. Why on earth shouldn't we look behind hills, if that where the evidence is? Where do you suggest we look, in the Bible?

[G Man]

Where do you suggest we look, in the Bible?

I don't think that would be such a bad idea acually! :smile:

[Gaytheist]

I don't think that would be such a bad idea acually! :smile:
Would you consider that to be a scientific approach?

[docpotato]

Evolutionists "proof" always happens somewhere else -- anywhere regular people can't see it happen. It happens over behind a hill....on the other side of the world, in unfound common ancestor bones, back in deep time, under the microscope etc etc.

Meanwhile God sits in his home in Detroit where any regular people can visit him whenever they want, huh?

[oxmixmudd]

I don't think that would be such a bad idea acually! :smile:

Actually, it's in the Bible. God commanded the Earth (land) to make life. It did. You YEC's just don't like how the Earth obeyed God's command. :lol:

But apparently it pleased Him. He said it was 'good'.


Jim

[Tatanka_Maza]

Why haven't apes or primates given birth to homonids since the beginning to recorded history? Afterall, if they did it once, why wouldn't they do it again? :wink: Maybe because there have been witnesses since the beginning of recorded history so apes don't want to be observed mutating into humans. Or maybe they're just plain tired of giving birth to new species. :lol: Or maybe one or 2 apes bred a different species and their offspring also produced a different species while the rest of the apes remained the same. What do you think? :huh:


Still at it with your gross mischaracterizations of evolution, eh Carico? This crap is what got your a$$ banned from CARM. It's called "bearing false witness".

[TheGreenMan]

Evolutionists "proof" always happens somewhere else -- anywhere regular people can't see it happen. It happens over behind a hill....on the other side of the world, in unfound common ancestor bones, back in deep time, under the microscope etc etc.
You mean a microscope is something "real people" can't use?

Actually, it's in the Bible. God commanded the Earth (land) to make life. It did. You YEC's just don't like how the Earth obeyed God's command.

But apparently it pleased Him. He said it was 'good'.


Jim
:lol:

[Jon_Day]

I don't think that would be such a bad idea acually! :smile:

But, what if its a microscopic bible that one must read with a microscope, and its sitting on a table behind a hill?

[Conductor42]

Why haven't apes or primates given birth to homonids since the beginning to recorded history? Afterall, if they did it once, why wouldn't they do it again? :wink: Maybe because there have been witnesses since the beginning of recorded history so apes don't want to be observed mutating into humans. Or maybe they're just plain tired of giving birth to new species. :lol: Or maybe one or 2 apes bred a different species and their offspring also produced a different species while the rest of the apes remained the same. What do you think? :huh:

Wow, I think we have a new candidate for the most ignorant person on TWeb.

[NeilUnreal]

You mean a microscope is something "real people" can't use?

Last winter my niece and I used a microscope to examine infusoria from various places: dead leaves in puddles on the swimming pool cover, the garden, etc.

The microscope itself is something of a minor family heirloom. It is actually a chimera of the best parts of two microscopes, one originally bought by my dad (a quondam biology major), and one that was mine in high school. It works amazingly well, though the hodgepodge of parts means the downstop is rarely functional and so one tends to go through a lot of coverslips :lol: .

-Neil

[Jon_Day]

Wow, I think we have a new candidate for the most ignorant person on TWeb.

I'll second the nomination.

[Gaytheist]

I'll second the nomination. When correction and information have been clearly, repeatedly and patiently provided, and the individual persists in disseminating inaccuracy, we no longer call that ignorance, we call it something else.

[rogue06]

Why haven't apes or primates given birth to homonids since the beginning to recorded history? Afterall, if they did it once, why wouldn't they do it again? :wink: Maybe because there have been witnesses since the beginning of recorded history so apes don't want to be observed mutating into humans. Or maybe they're just plain tired of giving birth to new species. :lol: Or maybe one or 2 apes bred a different species and their offspring also produced a different species while the rest of the apes remained the same. What do you think? :huh:


I think it is safe to assume that you don't exactly support the Theory of Evolution. If that's the case, may I suggest you take the time to get to know your "enemy" in order to better "defeat" it? Your OP indicates that you don't really understand it very well. Such a gross mischaracterization does nothng but confirm ignorance on the issue to others - many of whom may be undecided fellow Christians. Even worse was super's portrayal ("Yea I'm still waiting for lizard to morph into a mammal or a fish into a lizard too"),but I know that you have no control over what anyone else posts. Let me give you an example of what I'm trying to say. Suppose you heard someone say the following about Christianity: they're nothing but a bunch of cannibals seeking immortality after death through a human sacrifice. Can you even recognize Christianity in such an absurd portrayal? After the outrage you would probably think that anyone who says such bunk obviously doesn't know a thing about Christianity. You would be correct. The same goes when you or anyone else spouts total nonsense about Evolution. The same is true if anyone spouted nonsense about any topic. So, again, may I suggest you do a bit of research before starting your next thread :teeth:

[Jon_Day]

When correction and information have been clearly, repeatedly and patiently provided, and the individual persists in disseminating inaccuracy, we no longer call that ignorance, we call it something else.

Nomination for TWeb Stump?

[Carico]

I think it is safe to assume that you don't exactly support the Theory of Evolution. If that's the case, may I suggest you take the time to get to know your "enemy" in order to better "defeat" it? Your OP indicates that you don't really understand it very well. Such a gross mischaracterization does nothng but confirm ignorance on the issue to others - many of whom may be undecided fellow Christians. Even worse was super's portrayal ("Yea I'm still waiting for lizard to morph into a mammal or a fish into a lizard too"),but I know that you have no control over what anyone else posts. Let me give you an example of what I'm trying to say. Suppose you heard someone say the following about Christianity: they're nothing but a bunch of cannibals seeking immortality after death through a human sacrifice. Can you even recognize Christianity in such an absurd portrayal? After the outrage you would probably think that anyone who says such bunk obviously doesn't know a thing about Christianity. You would be correct. The same goes when you or anyone else spouts total nonsense about Evolution. The same is true if anyone spouted nonsense about any topic. So, again, may I suggest you do a bit of research before starting your next thread :teeth:

Sorry all children are taught the theory of evolution in elementary school. And I bought into it for 38 years, I'm ashamed to say, which is probably longer than you've been alive. But when I stopped being brainwashed by scientists, then it was easy to see that animals don't breed humans. Unfortunately, most evolutionists don't understand that yet. So their first step is to go back to the birds and the bees before making up impossible scenarios about what happened before there were any witnesses. :ahem:

[Jon_Day]

Sorry all children are taught the theory of evolution in elementary school. And I bought into it for 38 years, I'm ashamed to say, which is probably longer than you've been alive. But when I stopped being brainwashed by scientists, then it was easy to see that animals don't breed humans. Unfortunately, most evolutionists don't understand that yet. So their first step is to go back to the birds and the bees before making up impossible scenarios about what happened before there were any witnesses. :ahem:

The Theory of Evolution is a little complex for elementary school. I think you are just saying that to try to belittle the concept. Nice try though. I know that you didn't learn about The Theory of Evolution at any point in your entire lifetime, as you don't have even a limited knowledge as to what its about.

[rogue06]

Sorry all children are taught the theory of evolution in elementary school. And I bought into it for 38 years, I'm ashamed to say, which is probably longer than you've been alive. But when I stopped being brainwashed by scientists, then it was easy to see that animals don't breed humans. Unfortunately, most evolutionists don't understand that yet. So their first step is to go back to the birds and the bees before making up impossible scenarios about what happened before there were any witnesses.:ahem:



If you had a basic grasp of what the ToE says then you wouldn't have wrote what you did in the OP. If you ever obtained more than an "elementary school" concept of it you wouldn't defend your OP.
BTW, I might have you by a year or two.

[G Man]

Actually, it's in the Bible. God commanded the Earth (land) to make life. It did. You YEC's just don't like how the Earth obeyed God's command. :lol:

But apparently it pleased Him. He said it was 'good'.


Jim

I wonder how from that quote I become a YEC?... Its an accurate prediction though. Is it because I encouraged someone to read the bible?

As for your comments on the creation account...

God commanded life to come forth from the Earth, not for the Earth to create life. Read the following;

"And God said "Let the Earth bring forth every kind of animal - livestock, small animals, and wildlife." And so it was. God made all sorts of wild animals, livestock, and small animals, each able to reproduce more of its own kind. And God saw that it was good." -Genesis 1vv24-25 NLT- (Emphasis added)

From this passage it is easy to see that God created all 'kinds' of animals that are alive today. There is no evidence in this passage to suggest that any animal changed its 'kind' through evolution.

I challenge you to find any in the entire biblical creation account.

G

[Tatanka_Maza]

I think it is safe to assume that you don't exactly support the Theory of Evolution. If that's the case, may I suggest you take the time to get to know your "enemy" in order to better "defeat" it? Your OP indicates that you don't really understand it very well. Such a gross mischaracterization does nothng but confirm ignorance on the issue to others - many of whom may be undecided fellow Christians. Even worse was super's portrayal ("Yea I'm still waiting for lizard to morph into a mammal or a fish into a lizard too"),but I know that you have no control over what anyone else posts. Let me give you an example of what I'm trying to say. Suppose you heard someone say the following about Christianity: they're nothing but a bunch of cannibals seeking immortality after death through a human sacrifice. Can you even recognize Christianity in such an absurd portrayal? After the outrage you would probably think that anyone who says such bunk obviously doesn't know a thing about Christianity. You would be correct. The same goes when you or anyone else spouts total nonsense about Evolution. The same is true if anyone spouted nonsense about any topic. So, again, may I suggest you do a bit of research before starting your next thread :teeth:

Save your breath. She's not interested. Carico knows damn good and well she isn't representing ToE in an accurate manner. That's why she got tossed from other boards. For every piece of evidence she has one reply only.

[rogue06]

Save your breath. She's not interested. Carico knows damn good and well she isn't representing ToE in an accurate manner. That's why she got tossed from other boards. For every piece of evidence she has one reply only.


I'll keep that in mind since I didn't heed warnings about supersport which I wish I had. Still, can't blame me for trying. Wanted to go at it with a slightly different take. Live and learn. :shrug:

[Carico]

I'll second the nomination.

So why do you suppose an ape has never given birth to anything but an ape since there have been witnesses? Can anyone here answer that question? or not? :huh: If not, then it doesn't appear to be me who is ignorant. :wink:

Oh I know someone will say that evolution takes millions of years. So why did this happen millions of years ago, and hasn't been an ongoing thing with other apes? :lol: The answer is simple: Apes can't breed humans because apes and humans cannot breed together...unless evolutionists believe that goats can breed lions. :lol:

So not only do evolutionists not know the difference between animals and humans or what each species breeds, but they have no clue why lions don't mutate into giraffes, hippos don't mutate into tigers and monkeys don't mutate into humans. :ahem: Absolutely none. So sorry, but attacks don't prove your case. They only prove that you have no defense of your position. Sorry. :wink:

[Carico]

I'll second the nomination.

I realize that evolutionists don't understand what most children do; that animals can't breed human beings, so they won't know who is ignorant and who isn't until they die. Then they'll now for sure. :wink:

[rogue06]

...Apes can't breed humans because apes and humans cannot breed together...unless evolutionists believe that goats can breed lions.



This was just the type of willful ignorance and gross mischaracterization I was talking about. As a Christian I am deeply troubled when someone acts like a fool and claims that their actions are a result of being Christian. All this serves is to give ammo to those who scorn Christians as uneducated dolts. I'm not RCC but St. Augustine wrote about exactly this sort of problem in his "Literal Meaning of Genesis":
Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learned from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although "they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertions" (Augustine is quoting I Tim 1:7 at the end).
I don't expect Carico to pay any attention to any advise but perhaps other Christians will

[Carico]

This was just the type of willful ignorance and gross mischaracterization I was talking about. As a Christian I am deeply troubled when someone acts like a fool and claims that their actions are a result of being Christian. All this serves is to give ammo to those who scorn Christians as uneducated dolts. I'm not RCC but St. Augustine wrote about exactly this sort of problem in his "Literal Meaning of Genesis":
Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learned from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although "they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertions" (Augustine is quoting I Tim 1:7 at the end).
I don't expect Carico to pay any attention to any advise but perhaps other Christians will

Sorry, but true Christians don't claim God is lying when he says he created man out of the dust instead of the wombs of apes. As Jesus said; "What is highly valued among men is destestable in God's sight." And the theory of evolution is definitely highly valued among men! So as Paul says in Acts 5:19, "We must obey God rather than men!" So I suggest you heed his warning because "Christian" evolutionists are in for a much more ruder awakening than those who are honest about their unbelief of God's word since they have abandoned God for the teachings of men. Sorry. :wink:

[oxmixmudd]

I wonder how from that quote I become a YEC?... Its an accurate prediction though. Is it because I encouraged someone to read the bible?

As for your comments on the creation account...

God commanded life to come forth from the Earth, not for the Earth to create life. Read the following;

"And God said "Let the Earth bring forth every kind of animal - livestock, small animals, and wildlife." And so it was. God made all sorts of wild animals, livestock, and small animals, each able to reproduce more of its own kind. And God saw that it was good." -Genesis 1vv24-25 NLT- (Emphasis added)

From this passage it is easy to see that God created all 'kinds' of animals that are alive today. There is no evidence in this passage to suggest that any animal changed its 'kind' through evolution.

I challenge you to find any in the entire biblical creation account.

G

Actually, is says "let the Earth bring forth ...". It is the Earth (land) that is acting, as God gave it capability. Look, I don't think the original writer intended to imply evolution. But there are many truths in the Bible that the original writer was clueless about. This is one of the ways God inspires the text. An example you accept is the fact the writers of Messianic Prophesy had no clue there were two aspects to Messiah, separated by many thousands of years (suffering servant/coming King). There are many truths in the Bible hidden to be understood by later generations. This is how later generations can know it is not just any other book.

But your problem is you think God showed the writer a movie and He wrote it down word for word/picture by picture, and that the writer wasn't limited by his own understanding(or something roughly equivalent). And that is an assumption that is based on your own reasoning. The Bible makes no such claims. The only way we can know how God was communicating with the writer is to compare it against the Physical evidence. And that is how we learn this is not a literal story. But that does not mean it is not insprired or that it is not scripture as Paul describes scripture.

I would imagine you are a YEC for the same reason many of us start out that way. You know the power of the Bible, to communicate Christ, to save your soul. The natural reaction is to just take the entire text at face value. But there is more to understanding the text than a superficial reading. And it is clear there is no simple correlation of the text of Genesis with physical reality. It then takes a little extra faith not to lose sight of your knowledge of the Power of the message of the Bible (faith in Chirst) while realizing God is manifesting that power and commuicating that message through a text that also bears the mark of the humanity of those who wrote it.

Continue however your conscience dictates as regards YEC: But be honest about what the natural evidence implies. It is not up to you to reconcile the text and the science, but you must not be willfully ignorant or deceptive about what the real implications are: this will corrupt your conscience. And it goes without saying you can't deny the power of faith in Christ when one believes through the text (which is a temptation on the other side, when one accepts the human limitations of the text and then subsequently loses faith in its spirtual power)


Jim

[oxmixmudd]

Sorry, but true Christians don't claim God is lying when he says he created man out of the dust instead of the wombs of apes. As Jesus said; "What is highly valued among men is destestable in God's sight." And the theory of evolution is definitely highly valued among men! So as Paul says in Acts 5:19, "We must obey God rather than men!" So I suggest you heed his warning because "Christian" evolutionists are in for a much more ruder awakening than those who are honest about their unbelief of God's word since they have abandoned God for the teachings of men. Sorry. :wink:


So you just ignore my previous post (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1817307&postcount=371) and go on misusing Luke 16!!! When Jesus said "what is highly valued among men is detestable in God's sight", He is talking specifically about the love of money and fame. Stop abusing the scripture to support your own misguided view of the world.

And you will be hard pressed to show why your belief the text of Genesis must be literal is NOT a 'teaching of men' when the entire creation (clearly NOT written by men) is telling us otherwise!!!! And there are CLEAR clues in the text it is NOT to be taken in a superficially literal way. one of the clearest is the discription of the structure of the cosmos in Genesis 1:6-8. This is an ancient, and obviously flawed, view if taken literally.


Jim

[Tiggy]

Sorry, but true Christians don't claim God is lying when he says he created man out of the dust instead of the wombs of apes.
Hey Carico - if God created man out of dust, why is there still dust?

- T

[Fedmahn Kassad]

So why do you suppose an ape has never given birth to anything but an ape since there have been witnesses? Can anyone here answer that question? or not?

Has anyone ever seen a wolf give birth to a Chihuahua? Yet even Creationists acknowledge that Chihuahuas came from wolves. Why do they believe this if nobody has ever observed a wolf give birth to a Chihuahua?

Either your understanding of evolution is incredibly poor, or you are willfully creating strawmen and wasting people's time.

FK

[Tatanka_Maza]

Sorry, but true Christians don't claim God is lying when he says he created man out of the dust instead of the wombs of apes. As Jesus said; "What is highly valued among men is destestable in God's sight." And the theory of evolution is definitely highly valued among men! So as Paul says in Acts 5:19, "We must obey God rather than men!" So I suggest you heed his warning because "Christian" evolutionists are in for a much more ruder awakening than those who are honest about their unbelief of God's word since they have abandoned God for the teachings of men. Sorry. :wink:

Rogue, there's your answer..... :argh:

[Jon_Day]

Sorry, but true Christians don't claim God is lying when he says he created man out of the dust instead of the wombs of apes. As Jesus said; "What is highly valued among men is destestable in God's sight." And the theory of evolution is definitely highly valued among men! So as Paul says in Acts 5:19, "We must obey God rather than men!" So I suggest you heed his warning because "Christian" evolutionists are in for a much more ruder awakening than those who are honest about their unbelief of God's word since they have abandoned God for the teachings of men. Sorry. :wink:
You have an incredibly narrow viewpoint on the creation myth. Think deeper into the words you read...what is dust? God created man from dust, correct? Can dust not be described as atoms? Man is created from atoms. In fact, all things are created from atoms, as well as created of atoms...how does this atom/dust analogy disprove evolution? It doesn't even take it into account...it is merely suggesting the beginning....not the process of development...you will have to figure out a way to explain that portion.

Also, the theory of evolution does not say that we came from apes. That is pure ignorance on your part. What we were, no longer exists...because we are still what we were, we have just changed. We are primates...deal with it. If you don't like monkey sex parties...go to a different tree and stop trying to spoil everyones fun.

[Jon_Day]

So you just ignore my previous post (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1817307&postcount=371) and go on misusing Luke 16!!! When Jesus said "what is highly valued among men is detestable in God's sight", He is talking specifically about the love of money and fame. Stop abusing the scripture to support your own misguided view of the world.

And you will be hard pressed to show why your belief the text of Genesis must be literal is NOT a 'teaching of men' when the entire creation (clearly NOT written by men) is telling us otherwise!!!! And there are CLEAR clues in the text it is NOT to be taken in a superficially literal way. one of the clearest is the discription of the structure of the cosmos in Genesis 1:6-8. This is an ancient, and obviously flawed, view if taken literally.


Jim
"what is highly valued among men is detestable in God's sight" - "We must obey God rather than men!" - first off, were this the case...then we would be highly valuing God, and therefore God would become detestable in his own eyes...instead of cutting things up and pulling them out of context...you should focus more on understanding the words you are reading. In addition...this seems to be a rule typed by man, and therefore this rule should not be obeyed...nice paradox...im just gonna ignore it.

[Carico]

Satan isn't called the father of lies for nothing. How anyone can believe that monkeys can breed human beings is beyond comprehension. But that just shows how crafty Satan is that he can deceive even the most educated people on the earth into believing pure fantasy no matter how bizarre and ridiculous it is.:lol:

But Satan tempts people to use the word "evolve" to make people forget that mating and breeding is what produces descendants, not animals just changing into humans like quick change artists. :lol: And it worked. People forget what each animal can breed then make up stories that monkeys can breed human descendants. That just shows why "the wisdom of the world is foolishness in God sight." :ahem:

[rogue06]

Carico, Carico, Carico. How many times has your ignorant statement about monkeys breeding humans been corrected for you? Yet you steadfastly refuse to learn :no:

BTW, I hear tell that Satan put so-called fossils in the ground in order to decieve us too. :dizzy:

[SteveF]

Worse than that, if you accept an old earth, you will be devoured by a monster and your Bible destroyed:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/CreationWise/CW_Pages/0408.asp

[oxmixmudd]

Satan isn't called the father of lies for nothing. How anyone can believe that monkeys can breed human beings is beyond comprehension. But that just shows how crafty Satan is that he can deceive even the most educated people on the earth into believing pure fantasy no matter how bizarre and ridiculous it is.:lol:

But Satan tempts people to use the word "evolve" to make people forget that mating and breeding is what produces descendants, not animals just changing into humans like quick change artists. :lol: And it worked. People forget what each animal can breed then make up stories that monkeys can breed human descendants. That just shows why "the wisdom of the world is foolishness in God sight." :ahem:


Actually, Satan is more subtle than that. So he prefers to trick well meaning Christians into thinking it makes sense to remain ignorant of the facts in order to maintain their favorite interpretation of scripture. This is usually accomplished by first making them think that if their interpretation is wrong, then the Bible itself is no longer valid. This induces a protective response which effectively renders them deaf, dumb, and blind to any science or evidence that might challenge the dogma.

Thus, they become buffoons for the Lord. Unfortunately, when coupled with arrogance or a sense of superiority, this mindset encourages people to make public their views in a way like the above, where they flaunt their supposed superiority like an older women putting on her teenage bikini and not bothering to first check the mirror before venturing out on the beach.

Jim

[Barry Desborough]

Satan isn't called the father of lies for nothing. How anyone can believe that monkeys can breed human beings is beyond comprehension. But that just shows how crafty Satan is that he can deceive even the most educated people on the earth into believing pure fantasy no matter how bizarre and ridiculous it is.:lol:

But Satan tempts people to use the word "evolve" to make people forget that mating and breeding is what produces descendants, not animals just changing into humans like quick change artists. :lol: And it worked. People forget what each animal can breed then make up stories that monkeys can breed human descendants. That just shows why "the wisdom of the world is foolishness in God sight." :ahem:

No, Satan tempts people into believing a distorted, nursery class comprehension of Genesis. In this way, even though most Christians manage to avoid or escape his deception, he tries to make Christianity look very silly.

[Barry Desborough]

Worse than that, if you accept an old earth, you will be devoured by a monster and your Bible destroyed:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/CreationWise/CW_Pages/0408.asp

My goodness! You can't risk even opening that door for a peek!

Is there anyone left on this side of the door, apart from Jorge and Carico?

Actually, I think there's a pretty good party going on beyond that door!

[FreezBee]

Satan isn't called the father of lies for nothing. How anyone can believe that monkeys can breed human beings is beyond comprehension. But that just shows how crafty Satan is that he can deceive even the most educated people on the earth into believing pure fantasy no matter how bizarre and ridiculous it is.:lol:

But Satan tempts people to use the word "evolve" to make people forget that mating and breeding is what produces descendants, not animals just changing into humans like quick change artists. :lol: And it worked. People forget what each animal can breed then make up stories that monkeys can breed human descendants. That just shows why "the wisdom of the world is foolishness in God sight." :ahem:

Sorry, but you are all wrong, Carico, so let me, being a personal aquaintance of Satan, tell you the truth.

Satan is the zealousness of God, so Satan delights in trying to make people break the laws of God. Therefore, Satan has to lure people into believing that God has made some laws that they cannot break without being punished. The laws of course have to be irrationale, such as having to believe in a 6,000 years old universe and that kind of stuff.

So, now you know, therefore: go in peace and sin no more.


- FreezBee

[NeilUnreal]

My goodness! You can't risk even opening that door for a peek!

The fact that they themselves actually warn one against even glancing at contrary views says more that is negative about YEC (as a corporate enterprise) than anything any evolutionist or atheist has ever said.

-Neil

[rogue06]

Worse than that, if you accept an old earth, you will be devoured by a monster and your Bible destroyed:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Crea...Pages/0408.asp


And you should see what lies behind the doors marked "Evolution" and "Big Bang."
This would be hysterical if it weren't so sad. So deperate that you're forced to resort to such tactics to keep your flock in line. This is really quite reprehensible. And whatever happened to the old adage "Know thy enemy"?

[Sparko]

Carico, STOP starting more and more threads on the exact same thing (apes don't breed humans) - I am merging all 5 of your threads in to one big one. You can keep posting here if you want to discuss that, or you can drop the topic. But more threads on the same topic will be DELETED.